Vatican astronomer likens creationism to superstition

[Stephen_LB]

Someone privately informed me that rather than call it “Intelligent Design” it would be better to call it “Theistic Evolution”, and then everybody would be happy.

OK - so from now on all you ID folks, just refer to yourselves as theistic evolutionists

The article that was referred to in the post you responded to is here:

intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf

It was originally published in the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly. Perhaps you won’t like the science in it, but based on your other posts, it might be interesting to you from the perspective of Bioethics.

TE and ID are sufficiently different that conflating them would be unworkable.

 

[Stephen_LB]

That’s exactly my definition of ID. You’re a fairly recent poster to join the forums, but in the past I’ve made some impassioned posts with regard to science being an avenue into a greater appreciation of God’s glory through a better understanding of his universe.

It might help you understand other views of ID if you read the article I referred to in my last post. One excerpt:

Of course, there is more in the article.

ricmat, theistic evolution, as it is currently discussed agrees with neo–Darwinism that the designs we observe are only “illiusory.” It is incompatible with ID. If TE’s agreed that design is real, they would not militate against its formal detection. This is critical. Sure they say the design is “inherent” in the evolutionary process, but that turns out to be meaningless, since, for them, it is not a design that can be PERCEIVED. It can only be CONVEIVED. ID insists that design is perceivable and detectable.

 

[Stephen_LB]

That last post should have read this way: For TE, design is only CONCEIVED; for ID, design is PERCEIVED.

 

[ricmat]

ricmat, theistic evolution, as it is currently discussed agrees with neo–Darwinism that the designs we observe are only “illiusory.” It is incompatible with ID. If TE’s agreed that design is real, they would not militate against its formal detection. This is critical. Sure they say the design is “inherent” in the evolutionary process, but that turns out to be meaningless, since, for them, it is not a design that can be PERCEIVED. It can only be CONVEIVED. ID insists that design is perceivable and detectable.

Thanks for the clarification. I was planning on looking u p TE eventually, and was joking about it in the interim…

I do believe that design is perceivable, and detectable.

I’m not sure if I mentioned this to you, but it seems that people have different views of the word “design.” It can be a verb (like in Wildleafblower’s quote about Fr. Coyne). It envisions God making soup, and struggling to “design” it correctly, but finally getting it right. (I don’t buy that definition of design).

I see “design” primarily as a noun. God got the fundamental constants and natural laws right the first time (no soup making). And the product only could have turned out correct if God did it.

But I don’t believe that God then walked away from his creation to let it “unwind”. God obviously interacts with his creation - not out of necessity, but out of love. As someone said, a composer playing his own composition on his own piano - because he wants to.

As an engineer, we talk about designs as a product, the end result. One can detect/perceive the final product, and examine it for it’s elegance, utility, beauty, efficiency, etc. And you can tell the person or team responsible for it “That’s one heck of a design!”

The nice thing about the universe is that there is an endless supply of nifty things to detect / perceive and appreciate. With all glory given to God.

 

[drpmjhess]

Dembski’s probability bound, for example, sets virtual certainty at a complexity level of 500 bits of information. That is the equivalent of l chance in 10^150 that the complexity resulted by chance. That number is something like the probability that all the characters in this paragraph occurred in the exact order as lucky combination of events. To analyze the probability of an event by using data and expressing it in terms of mathematical certainty is a good example of science in action.

A central bait-and-switch in Dembski’s behavior is calculating the probability that something arose purely by chance, and then pretending that this probability correctly characterizes all possible scenarios of its origin that don’t have a (supernatural) intelligence involved. The fact (if it is a fact) that the odds of assembling a bacterial flagellum by heaping the parts together at random are < 1 x 10^-150 is irrelevant, because nobody thinks that’s how they form.

 

[ricmat]

The fact (if it is a fact) that the odds of assembling a bacterial flagellum by heaping the parts together at random are < 1 x 10^-150 is irrelevant, because nobody thinks that’s how they form.

So what IS the probability of a bacterial flagellum happening, based on how people think they DO form?

 

[drpmjhess]

The nice thing about the universe is that there is an endless supply of nifty things to detect / perceive and appreciate. With all glory given to God.

What about gamma ray bursters? Those can incinerate whole planets – and extinguish all life on them – if a star system happens to be in their path. (We are looking down the barrel of one now.) Is that arrangement intelligently designed?

 

[drpmjhess]

So what IS the probability of a bacterial flagellum happening, based on how people think they DO form?

I don’t know about probability. But Miller and Levine note that “The great irony of the flagellum’s increasing acceptance as an icon of anti-evolution is that fact that research had demolished its status as an example of irreducible complexity almost at the very moment it was first proclaimed.” See http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex – we know how it came about – and thus cannot serve as evidence of a designer.

 

[edwest2]

No one was there to see the bacterial flagellum develop. Pope John Paul II stated there is design in nature and to deny it is to ignore things as they actually are.

God bless,
Ed

 

[ricmat]

The nice thing about the universe is that there is an endless supply of nifty things to detect / perceive and appreciate. With all glory given to God.

What about gamma ray bursters? Those can incinerate whole planets – and extinguish all life on them – if a star system happens to be in their path. (We are looking down the barrel of one now.) Is that arrangement intelligently designed?

Is that arrangement intelligently designed?

As in, “Why does God let bad things happen?”

???

 

[Joe_Kelley]

What about gamma ray bursters? Those can incinerate whole planets – and extinguish all life on them – if a star system happens to be in their path. (We are looking down the barrel of one now.) Is that arrangement intelligently designed?

Sounds like a good design if the designer plans to fulfill the prophecy:

But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist have been stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. . . . 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up.

2Peter 3:8,10

 

[drpmjhess]

Is that arrangement intelligently designed?
As in, “Why does God let bad things happen?”
???

Yes. Inconsistent ID fans like to have it both ways: (1) nice, pretty, benign things are reflective of beneficent divine design; (2) bad, ugly, malign things are the fault of the devil, or of the imagined triggering of the second lay of thermodynamics, or some such ad hoc ploy.

 

[Stephen_LB]

A central bait-and-switch in Dembski’s behavior is calculating the probability that something arose purely by chance, and then pretending that this probability correctly characterizes all possible scenarios of its origin that don’t have a (supernatural) intelligence involved. The fact (if it is a fact) that the odds of assembling a bacterial flagellum by heaping the parts together at random are < 1 x 10^-150 is irrelevant, because nobody thinks that’s how they form.

Let’s make some distinctions that should be helpful. Dembski’s concept of “specified complexity” differs considerably from Behe’s notion of “irreducible complexity.”

“Specified complexity” simply refers to a pattern that is both specified and complex. According to Dembski, if an organism exhibits both of those qualities, it has been designed. Design detection consists of ruling out, in order, laws (regularities), chance (contingency), and design (intelligent agency) by using probability models. It works because law, chance, and agency are the only three possible causes for physical events. That is what makes it science. None of this has anything to do with “bait and switch,” because there are only three possibilities, so I can’t imagine what you mean here.

“Irreducible complexity” refers to organisms or assemblies that cannot function without all of their parts. Behe points to the “bacterial flagellum” as an example of an organism which cannot function without all of the parts. Unlike Dembski, Behe does not calculate probabilities because he is not a mathematician. His point is that there appears to be no evolutionary pathway through which these five components can build one into another. They must all be present from the beginning. Are you suggesting that Dembski used his mathematical models, which are designed to detect “specified complexity,” to measure Behe’s “irreducible complexity? No one has shown that the bacterial flagellum is redicible. I will address that in my other response to you.

 

[ricmat]

Yes. Inconsistent ID fans like to have it both ways: (1) nice, pretty, benign things are reflective of beneficent divine design; (2) bad, ugly, malign things are the fault of the devil, or of the imagined triggering of the second lay of thermodynamics, or some such ad hoc ploy.

I’ve never heard any of this connected with ID.

This sounds like a very elaborate straw man that the anti-ID people have set up.

The reason that we seek beauty, and truth, and pleasure, and justice, etc. is because they all originate with God, and it is actually God that we are seeking with these proxies. And the reason that we can actually experience beauty, truth, pleasure, justice, etc. is that we are made in the image and likeness of God. I don’t recall for sure, but I think that it was St. Thomas Aquinas (or Augustine) that said that. And it’s probably in the Catechism.

Back a post or two…The Glory of God - can it be present in a gamma ray burst, or a supernova, or some other cosmic calamity? Of course, yes. Do these show the majesty and power of God? Of course, yes. Might something be hurt by these events? Of course, yes.

We cannot pass judgment on God’s design or plans because they don’t live up to our standards. Creation meets God’s specifications, and as we know, God can bring a greater good out of what appears to us to be the worst evil, or worst disaster.

So you don’t believe that the actions of the devil bring “ugly” things into the world?

So far as the 2nd law of Thermodynamics - Entropy in general does tie in to the concept of deterioration and corruption and death. Things which do not exist in heaven.

 

[Stephen_LB]

I don’t know about probability. But Miller and Levine note that “The great irony of the flagellum’s increasing acceptance as an icon of anti-evolution is that fact that research had demolished its status as an example of irreducible complexity almost at the very moment it was first proclaimed.” See http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex – we know how it came about – and thus cannot serve as evidence of a designer.

Probability has nothing to do with it. Once again, you are confusing “specified complexity” with “irreducible complexity.” The bacterial flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex. Miller has often attempted to show otherwise, but he has always failed. In fact, Miller does not even understand the concept, as he made abundantly clear in a debate a few years ago with Behe on a television special called “firing line.” If you had seen it, you would not be using him as a credible resource. I have already cited examples on this blog of failed attempts to refute irreducible complexity. So, I can’t imagine what you mean when you say “we know how it came about.” No one has ever provided an evolutionary pathway to complexity. If that happened, you would not have to go to Miller’s website to get the information. It would be on the front pages of all the major newspa

 

[Stephen_LB]

Yes – it was an interesting read. As a Catholic theologian, I naturally presuppose the intelligibility of the cosmosu, and that however obscure it might be to us now, we have faith that the universe ultimately is intelligently designed.

The problem is that since ID is not science, it does not belong in science class, any more than astrology (however compelling) does not belong in an astronomy course. Scientists may detect patterns in nature, and their faith in God may be reinforced thereby, but that is not germane to their doing of science.

Petrus

Do you realize what that first paragraph says. In effect, you are saying [A] the universe is intelligible but ** the intelligibility is so obscure that we must use faith to perceive it. That is precisely what is wrong with TE. It is self contradictory. [A] Design is real, but ** design is illusory. If you really believed that the world was intelligible, you would also believe that the same design is detectable.****

 

[drpmjhess]

The bacterial flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex. Miller has often attempted to show otherwise, but he has always failed…I have already cited examples on this blog of failed attempts to refute irreducible complexity. So, I can’t imagine what you mean when you say “we know how it came about.” No one has ever provided an evolutionary pathway to complexity.

Not at all true. In case you haven’t seen the Dover trial transcript, here it is:

talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day1pm.html

 

[Stephen_LB]

Not at all true. In case you haven’t seen the Dover trial transcript, here it is:

talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day1pm.html

As I have pointed out, Miller does not know what he is talking about. He believes, for example, that the individual parts “have no function of their own.” That is not part of the argument, it is something Miller made up. Scott Minnich refuted Miller at the trial by showing that the bacterial flaggelum is irreducibly complex, but Jones refused to include it in his final decision. Apparently, you are getting all of your information from anti-ID websites. You really ought to investigate this matter more fully. You can start by reading some of the ID literature.

Ironically, Miller admits in the same discussion that ID is science. He points out that “irreducible complexity is ‘falsibible’ and that he falisified it.” So, if you are looking to Miller to support you theme that ID isn’t science, you will have to look elsewhere. Again, I suggest that you start accumulating evidence from both sides of the debate.

 

[Stephen_LB]

Yes. Inconsistent ID fans like to have it both ways: (1) nice, pretty, benign things are reflective of beneficent divine design; (2) bad, ugly, malign things are the fault of the devil, or of the imagined triggering of the second lay of thermodynamics, or some such ad hoc ploy.

No, actually it is always the TE’s who raise this issue first, just as you have done here. The TE’s approach goes like this: [A] The design seems to have flaws, ** thus, God could not have done it that way, so [C] God must have let it happen by accident therefore [D] there is no design. The whole thing is pure theological speculation.

What the TE’s do not take into account is the fact that “optimum design” is not synonymous with “perfect design.” Some designs must be integrated with other designs, suggesting that all functions cannot be perfect simultaneously. It may be that some things must be sacrificed for other things. Again, this is a subject that you ought to investigate. In any case, the doctrine of “original sin” could easily explain how perfect designs were compromised. But, since so many TE’s don’t agree with the Church’ teaching on original sin, that complicates the matter even more.

All of this is a distraction, however. In the final analysis, Theistic evolution goes against Scripture. According to the Psalms, God’s design is clear to all. St Paul even goes so far as to say those who disagree “are without excuse.”**

 

[drpmjhess]

As I have pointed out, Miller does not know what he is talking about. He believes, for example, that the individual parts “have no function of their own.” …D websites. You really ought to investigate this matter more fully. You can start by reading some of the ID literature…

No, Miller does not believe this – that’s his whole point in showing that “irreducible complexity” is biological nonsense.

As for wasting my time reading ID literature, why would I do this? Careers are too short to spend precious moments analyzing the arcane ideas of cranks in a cultural backwater. Meanwhile, 100,000 biologists quietly go about their daily work, adding to the store of human knowledge about how the world works, and for most of them it’s as if the Discovery Institute didn’t even exist. It will fade away, just as Young Earth Creationism has faded over the years. When a new and educated generation grows up, they will wonder what all these antiquated school board fights over the teaching of evolution were all about.