Vatican astronomer likens creationism to superstition

[itinerant1]

The problem with secular science isn’t science. Rather, the problem is the human willed advocacy of scientism. An ‘ism’ is a philosophy. The ‘ism’ is the proposition of an intuitive fill-in-the-blank argument (i.e. evolution.) called the missing-link. Why would clever apes need to attempt an argument about a meaningless existence? Scientism is the belief that evolution is the center of the universe. So, scientism is a philosophical measure of all things in existence by the reasoning faculty of the mind interpreting a fill-in-the-blank philosophy without a scientific re-occuring condition (i.e. the Newtonian laws of physics, and Bernoulli’s law.) The human being uses his or her voice to give life to science in the foundation of debate through suggestive means of eloquence. Salvation of a human being is left out of science. How can a scientist discuss morals and objective laws of right and wrong?

Fundamentalism is the other ‘ism.’ In some sense, the problem of creationism and scientism is a Protestant type of debate. The fundamenalist approach centers everything around a literal sense of understanding though the faculty of the mind. Man begins to measure Scripture by his or her own intuitive will.

The problem with the two ‘ism’s’ is that neither one is necessarily a genuine desire of loving one’s neighbor. Both scientism and fundamentalism is fueled by pride. That is, both believe man is the measure of all things. The fundamentalist view is man needs God and man is incapable of doing things without God. The observation isn’t a bad one. Accept, the fundamentalist cannot understand Joseph loving God and being a chaste spouse. Love is missing on both sides.

What does scientism view about abortion, euthanasia, disordered sexual attractions, etc.?

I agree with the majority of things which you have said here. However, I am not sure what you mean when you imply that scientism discounts the laws of nature such have been formulated by Newton, etc.

Also, scientism, if you include Darwin and certain neo-Darwinists in that category, measure all things by human reason, but it is not “human reason” as traditionally and properly understood. Human reason was Darwin’s personal enemy. He sought to dethrone “that Citadel”, as he refers to it in his Notebooks. And dethrone it he did. Certain of Darwin’s contempories, who were evolutionists, were very uncomfortable with Darwin’s use of reason to attack reason.

Nonetheless, this is what he accomplished by applying the principles of the “Origin of Species” to man in “The Descent of Man”. In Darwin’s world view, one which he had before his voyage on the Beagle, man is nothing more than a sophisticated ape. In his early Notebooks, Darwin was delighted to think that animals and humans “may be all melted together”.

One of Darwin’s contemporaries, Huxley, was quick to realize and and bold enough to straightforwardly state that the primary result of Darwinian theory is the liberation of man from sexual ethics. Victorian society found comfort in Darwin’s view. (It’s odd to think the sexual liberation of the 20th century '60’s may have originated around the time of the 19th century '60’s.)

Darwin was logically conflicted and philosophically confused when he thought human reason can show that human reason is not radically different than the cognitive powers of higher animals. Darwin remained clueless about the real nature of man and his power or faculty of reason.

Radical materialism and atheism are necessarily implied by Darwin’s theory. The metaphysical truths that man achieves are no longer real knowledge. Darwin dethroned the “Citadel”.

One of the many contemporary cultural consequences of Darwinism is the subjection of reason to will, such as is found in modern and post-modern ideologies. For example, the primacy of will over reason is an assumed premise of Deconstructionism.

 

[CreedalCatholic]

The re-occuring condition of something like Newtonian physics can be demonstrated by the process of experiment (for instance, you can throw something up and find it comes down. The event can be described as gravity.)

Evolution doesn’t seem to be re-occuring. Someone could graft a plant and suggest the plant is evolved (the use of grafting isn’t an evolution. The use of one part and putting it together with another part is not a substance on its’ own evolving to meet an environmetal change. Also, grafting isn’t naturally occuring by a plant without a human being.) Gravity doesn’t need to be induced by a person.

 

[itinerant1]

The re-occuring condition of something like Newtonian physics can be demonstrated by the process of experiment (for instance, you can throw something up and find it comes down. The event can be described as gravity.)

Evolution doesn’t seem to be re-occuring. Someone could graft a plant and suggest the plant is evolved (the use of grafting isn’t an evolution. The use of one part and putting it together with another part is not a substance on its’ own evolving to meet an environmetal change. Also, grafting isn’t naturally occuring by a plant without a human being.) Gravity doesn’t need to be induced by a person.

Evolution is not said to be a “re-occuring” event, but a continuously occuring fact of nature. The example of grafting does not really work. Even the evolutionist would say that grafting is not an instance of an evolutionary process, and that you have misunderstood what evolution is.

Microevolution is verifiable as a fact of nature. We can observe changes in the population of Drosophila that are examples of microevolution. The fact that Drosophila have short life spans, and reproduce quickly makes it easy to observe changes. Observing Drosophila is rather cool because it is like having time in fast-forward mode.

The subject of macroevolution is problematic. You are not going to see macroevolution take place in any relatively short period of time. The past is the key to finding evidence for macro-evolution. Unfortunately for Darwinists, evidence for transitional types is severely lacking. I do not know if there are any instances of living varieties than can be considered transitional types.

To me, this situation suggests certain major flaws in evolutionary theory. Yet, it does not seem to be proof that evolution, in some sense of the word, is not a fact of nature. It only shows that a correct understanding of the dynamics is further away than many scientists are willing to admit.

Darwinian theory cannot be a correct explanation of evolution. Darwinists stick to the theory claiming that it cannot be disproven. However, it cannot be disproven for the very same reason that it cannot be proven. If one knows about Popperian analysis of scientific theory, then he knows that Darwinian theory is formulated in such away that it is not falsifiable.

The upshot is that according Popperian analysis, Darwinism cannot be true. But that is another, and rather complicated matter in itself. For now, it would serve you well to lose the grafting argument, forever and day. LOL

Peace

 

[itinerant1]

Time is a finite quantity.
itinerant1 replies:
Time is not a finite quality. Neither is it an actually existing infinite. Time is potentially infinite just as number is potentially infinite. Both are capable of continuous addition.

A measure in change of an objects’ position.
Itinerant1 replies:
If you assert that time is the “measure in change”, then the rest of what you said contradicts this. Your argument does not logically follow from your original premise. I will come back to this point.

Time is not just the measure of change, it is also the measure of rest.

The word for which is the essence of change doesn’t imply progressive nor regressive changes of something.
Itinerant1 replies:
Time cannot be the esssence of change if it is the measure of change, which you previously asserted. This is where your argument begins to contradict itself. The expression, “Time is of the essence” does not apply here, any more than does the saying “Time is money” (just kidding, of course).

The essence of change is not time. The essence of change is motion. Time is the number of motion (and rest).

That is, time is a measurable phenomenon in nature without any necessary forward or backward change.
Itinerant1 replies:
Likewise, time is not a measureable phenomenon in nature. You will not see anything in nature that you can point to and say, “Look here. This is time”. Time is not a measurable phenomenon. Time is, rather, the measure of phenomena in motion. Since time is the number of change, it does not exist in nature; it exists in the soul. Only change or motion exists externally to man.

If time stopped, then all material things would stop.
Itinerant1 replies:
Again, this is the exact opposite of what time is, and it contradicts your statement that time is the “measure in change of an objects’ position”. The correct statement is that if all material things stopped, then time will have stopped. There is no change to be numbered or measured. On the other hand, if the stop being considered is merely an intermittent rest (the universe taking a rest break from all of the exhausting changes it is making) then we have a “before” and “after”, and time has not stopped.

The atom is made of parts that move around and around at such and such a rate in time. Now, a stop of time is immeasurable. Outside of time is immeasurable. So, does time cease outside of time? The point is that Divine Revelation is an observance outside of time about things in time.
Itinerant1 replies:
Time, as we know it, does not exists outside of the universe. Yet there is another kind of time that does exists outside of our time. Angels exists outside of time, but not in an absolute sense. Since their being involves potentiality or and admixture of act and potency, they or subject to certain types of spiritual change. Spiritual change or motion can be numbered according to a manner appropriate to immaterial reality. Yet, since an angel is outside of our time, he sees the relativity of time in the universe from an absolute perspective. So, all created things do not exist in a state of relativity. But that is another issue.

Of course, God’s being does not admit of an admixture of potency. He is pure actuality and therefore outside of time, absolutely. God’s actions do not involve change. He acts without changing. That is a difficult concept for the human mind.

Here is the bottom line on time in the created universe:
Since time is the number of change, if nobody existed to number the change, then time would not exist. Only change or motion would exist.

 

[itinerant1]

The story of creation had to be revealed. How could a human being have seen events before his or her own existence? So, there must have been a revealing of those events.

What about the big bang? There must have been an initiator of the initiated event. The event had to be created from nothing. If there was nothing of that things’ existence, then that thing had to be created out of nothing. Saying nothing still means something. For, nothing is the absence of being. The absence of being is still a sense something not being in existence. So, where does existence come from?

Dude, you are making me repeat myself.

Some things about Creation were revealed. But you are assuming that everything in the creation story is Revelation. The author of Genesis 1 writes under the guiding Inspiration of the Spirit, but Inspiration and Revelation are not the same thing.

Certain things are revealed to an inspired writed, but not every word he writes is something revealed. The author can pick and choose how he wants to present that which has been revealed to him. In Genesis, a paticular literary framework was chosen in which the various things of creation are entered in an arrangement of the author’s choosing, all with the purpose of conveying God’s message.

Every detail does not involve Revelation. The details in Genesis 1 show that the specifics of Creation were not revealed to the author. We cannot use the details of Genesis 1 as scientific text about the universe. If we do, we just look foolish to scientists who know better about the universe and the age of the earth.

The poetic arrangement in Genesis 1 is the human element in the inspired writing. Scripture is both Divine and human, just as Christ is both Divine and human. We do not say that everything about Christ is Divine Nature, for that would be to deny His human nature. Likewise, we do not say everything in Scipture is Divine Revelation, for that would we be to deny the human element.

The details in Scripture are not the Divine message. The details are the “how” the Divine message is taught, not the “what” is being taught. For example, the existence of Floodgates above the Firmament is not “what” Genesis teaches. This is not Revelation. It is just one of the many details used to convey a revealed message. Every detail in the Bible is not necessarily true. Only the Divine message is necessarily true.

And some or all of what is Revelation in Genesis 1 may have been revealed earlier and passed along in oral traditions before it was written down by the inspired writer.

Big Bang
I am going to get a little repetitive here for the sake of emphasis. The problem seems to be that you are thinking of the Big Bang event in the context of creatio ex nihil. Creation and Big Bang are not the same thing. Big Bang theory does not say what if anything went on prior to the Big Bang. Hypothetically, one can say the universe existed prior to the Big Bang. The matter of the universe collapsed into to a dense mass. This reduction of matter and energy later exploded and began expanding. There could have been more than one Big Bang. One can imagine a series involving the universe expanding and then collasping in on itself. We can compare it to a balloon that is inflated and then the air let out. The cycle is then repeated.

This illustrates the fact that if one thinks of the Big Bang as if it could be the Creation referred to in Genesis 1:1, he will get thoroughly confused.

The theological questions about Creation are more ultimate than a scientific theory that tries to account for the expansion of the universe. The issue of Creation involves answering the question why there is anything at all rather than nothing. What the condition was of matter and energy upon being brought into existence is an unknown. In other words, we do not know what things looked like. Science does not have he answer.

Scientific theory of Big Bang is not an alternative explanation to the belief in Creation. Big Bang, contrary to Stephen Hawking’s illusion, is not an ultimate explanation of things that exist. Secondary causes require a primary cause. Revelation tells us that the primary cause is not just an Uncaused Cause, but a personal being.

There is more than one theory of Big Bang, but a strictly scientific theory is completely consistent with Creation. The universe still requires an ultimate explanation for its existence and activity, whether there was no Big Bang or a dozen Big Bangs. I frequently post a link to an article that explains things better than I do. If you haven’t read this article you may want to do that: Aquinas and the Big Bang

We will not find an answer in Genesis to any questions about what created things looked like upon first being brought into existence because the cosmogony in Genesis is one of a flat earth resting on pillars in a relatively small universe with a firmament and flood gates, and so on.

 

[Xpat]

Evolution is the “Devil’s Doctrine” and should be rejected on theological and scientific grounds.

I recommend to anyone interested to buy and read The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11 A Compendium and Defense of Trational Catholic Theology on Origins. The author is the Rev. Victor P. Warkulwiz, M.S.S.

Never be embarrassed again in proclaiming the literal teachings of Genesis.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

In another thread we are discussing the killing of Abel by Cain. In my recent link to World’s First Murder, part 14 Rabbi Forhman gives a quotation from the 13th century Spanish sage Nachmanides which appears to support the Big Bang and Evolution.

It was only on the first day of creation that God created something from nothing. From then on, He fashioned everything from the elements He had brought into being on the First Day. For example, He empowered water to give rise to living things, as it is stated “let the water swarm…,” and He allowed animal life to emerge from the land, as the verse states: “Let the land bring forth living things (Genesis 1:23).” When He created man, though, the Lord said: "Let us make man…" In so doing, the Almighty was speaking to the earth – the last “being” to bring forth life [see the immediately preceding verse about earth “bringing forth” the animals]. In effect, He was saying: “You and I together will make man. You will contribute the elements for the body, as you did for the animals, and I will contribute the soul, as it is written: ‘and He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.’” (Nachmanides to Genesis 1:26

This would view would seem to be acceptable to Catholic teaching also. [Note I say acceptable; not mandatory.]

 

[inthecloud]

In fact the Jews make a difference between the verb used to mean create (as in the heavens and the earth) and modelate (as in the plants,animal and humans).
That means that humans, plants and animals were modelated out of preexistant matter.

 

[itinerant1]

Evolution is the “Devil’s Doctrine” and should be rejected on theological and scientific grounds.

I recommend to anyone interested to buy and read The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11 A Compendium and Defense of Trational Catholic Theology on Origins. The author is the Rev. Victor P. Warkulwiz, M.S.S.

Never be embarrassed again in proclaiming the literal teachings of Genesis.

Xpat, instead of just giving a link to a work by Rev. Warkulwiz, can you provide what you think are one or two of his best arguments? That way it will give something specific for others to respond to in this thread.

Also, what do you think of St. Thomas Aquinas’ position that says a direct creation in six days is favored by a superficial reading of Scripture?

Furthermore, have you responsed in any way to what St. Augustine says about Genesis 1? See my post 115.

The quote in post 126, while I have some disagreement with details of Rabbi Forhman’s interpretation of Genesis 1, is consistent with St. Augustine’s treatment of the text, and it is much closer to the truth than any literal only/fundamentalist interpretation of the creation account.

What do you think about St. Augustine’s doctrine of rationes seminales?

The gist here in what I am saying is that for you to mereley cite a book title is not contributing in any real way to a discussion of the issue. A quote from Rabbi Forhman gives something to consider. Kudos! So, why don’t you give us a good quote, also, or say something significant in your own words?

I am not of the position that Darwinism is not a problematic theory. There are serious philosophical and theological implications of Darwinism that Catholic Darwinists do not understand. However, I maintain without any reservations that there is a true, scientific basis for biological and cosmic evolution. I believe in creation and evolution. If you can’t show me I am wrong about evolution, or even make a reasoned out argument in your defense, then I will continue with my belief in evolution completely unaffected by cut and run postings from biblical literalists as yourself.

 

[inthecloud]

Is a mistake to asume that Theistic Evolution=NeoDarwinism.

 

[itinerant1]

Xpat, instead of just giving a link to a work by Rev. Warkulwiz, can you provide what you think are one or two of his best arguments? That way it will give something specific for others to respond to in this thread.

Also, what do you think of St. Thomas Aquinas’ position that says a direct creation in six days is favored by a superficial reading of Scripture?

Furthermore, have you responsed in any way to what St. Augustine says about Genesis 1? See my post 115.

The quote in post 126, while I have some disagreement with details of Rabbi Forhman’s interpretation of Genesis 1, is consistent with St. Augustine’s treatment of the text, and it is much closer to the truth than any literal only/fundamentalist interpretation of the creation account.

What do you think about St. Augustine’s doctrine of rationes seminales?

The gist here in what I am saying is that for you to mereley cite a book title is not contributing in any real way to a discussion of the issue. A quote from Rabbi Forhman gives something to consider. Kudos! So, why don’t you give us a good quote, also, or say something significant in your own words?

I am not of the position that Darwinism is not a problematic theory. There are serious philosophical and theological implications of Darwinism that Catholic Darwinists do not understand. However, I maintain without any reservations that there is a true, scientific basis for biological and cosmic evolution. I believe in creation and evolution. If you can’t show me I am wrong about evolution, or even make a reasoned out argument in your defense, then I will continue with my belief in evolution completely unaffected by cut and run postings from biblical literalists as yourself.

Correction: I meant *Nachmanides’ *interpretation, not Rabbi Forhman. In fact, I will be keeping an eye out for any works by Nachmanides.

 

[itinerant1]

Is a mistake to asume that Theistic Evolution=NeoDarwinism.

Right on! I know that, but there are Catholic Darwinists or (neo-Darwinists) on CAF that just don’t get it.

 

[Stephen_LB]

The Kolbe Center and Fr. Warkulwiz

I answered my own question above by jumping over to the Kolbe Center web site. It takes about 30 seconds on that site to see that the book Kolbe Center is promoting, “The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11”, by Fr. Victor Warkulwiz, must be a fundamentalist’s *tour de *force in poor reasoning and eisegesis, rather than exigesis. So sad!

The first review of Fr. Warkulwiz’s book says, “He clearly explains the science and exposes the pseudo-science relied on to support “big bang” and “macro evolutionary” theories, revealing the power and appeal of principles such as “intelligent design,” and “irreducible complexity” to refute claims for a purposeless cosmos.”

Of course, I haven’t read the book, but it appears safe to assume that that Fr. Warkulwiz equates the “Big Bang” with “puposeless universe”. This equation is a fallacy because there is not a single theory or hypothesis of Big Bang. There is more than one theory of Big Bang, and puposelessness is not implied by every theory.

First of all, purpose in nature is not within the province of the natural sciences to discuss. It is a subject for philosophy and theology. I do not know if Fr. Warkulwiz understands this fact about the natural sciences.

Second, Hawking’s theory of Big Bang, for instance, goes beyond science when he says that his particular theory leaves no room for God. Hawking’s theory is an example of one that excludes purpose in the universe. Hawking has gone beyond the proper scope and limitations of natural science. And if Hawking thinks his theory dispoves the existence of God, in the final analysis, we will see that his theory is nonsensical. One does not need to be a genius like Hawking to see that his genius is misguided.

A strictly scientific Big Bang theory will not conflict with the truth of purpose or goal directed activity in the universe. Neither will it conflict with the truth of God’s existence.

So, these are reasons some why it is fallacious and misleading to equate the Big Bang with a purposeless universe as it seems that Fr. Warkulwiz does.

Big Bang does conflict with a strictly literal reading of Genesis 1. However, there is nothing in the theory of Big Bang that conflicts with traditional Christian philosophy. The best explanation of this fact I have found on the internet is one by Professor William E. Carroll, called Aquinas and the Big Bang.

Professor Carroll’s article should be sufficient refutation of anything Fr. Warkulwiz has to say on the subject.

Any appeal to “intelligent design”, such as is made by Fr. Warkulwiz, is bound to be problematic. I.D. is not science. I.D. discusses science, but deals with matters that are philosophical, i.e. design. This would fine in itself, except for the fact that I.D. is bad philosophy. I.D. confuses science and philosophy. The promoters of I.D. are not professionally trained philosophers. They make the critical error of conflating primary and secondary causes. The import of this error is to make I.D. logically and philosophical unacceptable.

Father Edward Oakes discusses this problem in a ZENIT interview: Evolution in the Eyes of the Church (Part 2)

Another useful interview concerning evolution and creation is one with Father Rafael Pascual: Magisterium on Creation and Evolution

I will be moving on to my next post, where I will show what St. Augustine would say about all of this hoopla. Fr. Warkulwiz presents his interpretations of the Church Fathers, including St. Augustine. One cannot say too much about “The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11”, without having first read it, but after you read my next post on St. Augustine, ask yourself whether Fr. Warkulwiz may be misinterpreting the Church Fathers.

I would like to learn more about your objection to the intelligent design movement. I appreciated that fact that you provided a link to Father Oakes explanations about the distinction between design and finality. However, I am not sure I accept his characterization of the way these two elements relate to one another. From what I understand about Aquinas, God may create either through law (necessity), chance (contingency), or intelligent agency (design).

For example, God may create a snowflake or moon crater through law and chance, while creating a DNA molecule through front-loaded design. If, in some cases, God creates through design, then that design has the potential to be detected scientifically. Intelligent design acknowledges that most things are NOT designed. It posits that among those things that are designed, detection is possible, because design leaves clues, whether it comes from a Divine intelligence or a human intelligence. To me, it doesn’t follow that just because God CAN create through contingency (secondary causes?) that he ALWAYS creates through contingency.

 

[itinerant1]

Intelligent design acknowledges that most things are NOT designed. It posits that among those things that are designed, detection is possible, because design leaves clues, whether it comes from a Divine intelligence or a human intelligence.

My first objection to I.D. is that it is not science in the sense of natural science. Advocates of I.D. are attempting to redefine science. They consider I.D. to be science in the manner that some people consider astrology to be a science. Aquinas certainly would not accept such reasoning. There is no place for I.D. in the science classroom.

Next, I.D. deals with matters that are philosophical in nature. This would be fine if I.D. advocates understood this and properly distinguished between natural science and philosophy. I.D. incorporates philosophical arguments against evolution. For instance, consider the argument concerning the irreducible complexity of the eye. This is not a strictly scientific argument. The argument confuses types of causality. I am not implying the Darwinian explanation of how the eye could have evolved is an adequate explanation. The Darwinian hypothetical possibility does not reflect extant scientific evidence of what actually happened in the history of biological processes. Significant gaps remain between the origin of light sensitive spots among simpler animals and the very complex structure of the human eye.

Now I would seriously consider I.D. outside of the natural sciences, as a particular philosophical analysis, except that it is bad philosophy.

Now, you said, “From what I understand about Aquinas, God may create either through law (necessity), chance (contingency), or intelligent agency (design).”

The problem here is that there should be an inclusive and not an exclusive “or” between law, chance, and intelligent agency. All contingent being originates from intelligent agency. This is a primary cause. I.D. remains confused on this point.

I will try to explain something about causality in a short space. The intelligibility of any created thing is due to its immaterial principle, the substantial form. The form is an actuating principle. For example, a tree, has a complex design, one which is capable of being understood by the mind. The universal, “treeness”, is instantiated or particularized in prime matter, and makes this thing to be what it is, a particular tree. Substantial matter and form are causes of every contingent being. We refer to these causes and the “formal” and “material” causes. There are two more causes called the “efficient cause” and the “final cause”. We can generally think of the efficient cause as the moving cause. It corresponds more to the average person’s concept of cause. The “final cause” is purpose, or that for sake of which something is done. For instance, one may jog to keep in a healthy state. Health is the goal. It is the final cause, which accounts for the activity of jogging. I.D. confuses final cause with design. The final cause cannot be design, for one reason, because the final cause is extrinsic to the effect.

In order for the final cause to be a final cause, it must exist both last and first. It exists last, as the goal. It exists first, as an idea. The jogger first conceives of achieving health by jogging before he goes to the track. Final causes in nature pre-exist in the mind of God, and can be referred to as the “exemplary causes”.

The “exemplary cause” is a fifth cause of created things. The first four causes are secondary causes of all things in nature.

Contingent beings, both non-living and living necessarily act according to the laws of their nature. Their nature determines their acts. Rocks fall because of gravity, etc. Only beings with freewill can act outside of what is determined. A free act is not un-caused, it is self-caused.

Chance or contingency is not absolute chance or contingency. Chance is a series of compiled causes, which remain unknown to us. Neo-Darwinists view natural selection as both determined and random. However, the apparent randomness leads them to deny purpose or final causes in nature. This is to make an unsupportable philosophical assumption. Randomness is necessarily circumscribed by purpose.

You stated that, “Intelligent design acknowledges that most things are NOT designed.”

That seems to be a rather odd position to take. The assertion appears to accept the Darwinian denial of purpose or finality in nature, except in a few situations. It also, implies a mistaken understanding of “chance” events. To the contrary, every created thing manifests design. They are brought into existence through purpose. Chance is always circumscribed by purpose.

Still, design is not a final cause. When one understands the traditional Aristotelian-Thomistic doctrine of causes, in the context of continuing Divine Providence, then it becomes apparent there is no need for Divine intervention into the laws of nature to account for the existence of any created thing except the human soul. The soul cannot be a product of nature.

Father Oakes cites a book by Etienne Gilson, “From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again: A Journey in Final Causality, Species, and Evolution”. It does not get any better than Gilson’s analysis. If I.D. or neo-Darwinists were capable of presenting a serious counter-argument to Gilson’s work, then that would be something worth looking at. As it stands, I.D. and Darwinism remain seriously flawed concerning final causes in nature.

A brief overview of cause can be found online in the Catholic Encyclopedia under Cause.

 

[Doyle_Mashern]

Right on! I know that, but there are Catholic Darwinists or (neo-Darwinists) on CAF that just don’t get it.

Don’t get what?

 

[Stephen_LB]

Next, I.D. deals with matters that are philosophical in nature. FONT]

Now I would seriously consider I.D. outside of the natural sciences, as a particular philosophical analysis, except that it is bad philosophy.

The problem here is that there should be an inclusive and not an exclusive “or” between law, chance, and intelligent agency. All contingent being originates from intelligent agency. This is a primary cause. I.D. remains confused on this point.

In order for the final cause to be a final cause, it must exist both last and first. It exists last, as the goal. It exists first, as an idea. The jogger first conceives of achieving health by jogging before he goes to the track. Final causes in nature pre-exist in the mind of God, and can be referred to as the “exemplary causes”.

Chance or contingency is not absolute chance or contingency. Chance is a series of compiled causes, which remain unknown to us. Neo-Darwinists view natural selection as both determined and random. However, the apparent randomness leads them to deny purpose or final causes in nature. This is to make an unsupportable philosophical assumption. Randomness is necessarily circumscribed by purpose.

Still, design is not a final cause. When one understands the traditional Aristotelian-Thomistic doctrine of causes, in the context of continuing Divine Providence, then it becomes apparent there is no need for Divine intervention into the laws of nature to account for the existence of any created thing except the human soul. The soul cannot be a product of nature.

Father Oakes cites a book by Etienne Gilson, “From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again: A Journey in Final Causality, Species, and Evolution”. It does not get any better than Gilson’s analysis. If I.D. or neo-Darwinists were capable of presenting a serious counter-argument to Gilson’s work, then that would be something worth looking at. As it stands, I.D. and Darwinism remain seriously flawed concerning final causes in nature.

A brief overview of cause can be found online in the Catholic Encyclopedia under Cause.

-----you wrote, “My first objection to I.D is that it is not science.”

I don’t see why Aquinas would object one way or the other. You are assuming what is called “methodological naturalism,” which is the Darwinian model for science. Indeed, all the great scientists of the past claimed that they were thinking God’s thoughts after him.” Clearly, they were not afraid to consider things other than natural laws as explanations.

------“Next, I.D. deals with matters that are philosophical in nature.”

“Specified complexity,” it seems to me, is a scientific concept; “irreducible complexity,” is, again, from my vantage point, a scientific concept. ID is inference to the best explanation, which is a legitimate aspect of science.

I am not sure I understand your point about “inclusiveness”. Obviously, law and chance originate from the mind of God, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t consider each one separately for purposes of analysis.

-----The final cause cannot be design, for one reason, because the final cause is extrinsic to the effect.

That makes sense to me and that, it seems to me, is exactly what intelligent design does; it studies the “effects” of intelligent agency. In this case, the design would not be the final cause, it would be the manifest clue about final causes’ existence. I don’t see the problem here. By the way, I agree with you about Aquinas’ “realistic” epistemology. That is why I disagree with Darwin, Kant, and others who would reduce the “image of design” in the mind to nothing but a mental construct. To me, the Kantian error is in back of all of this confusion.

------Neo-Darwinists view natural selection as both determined and random. However, the apparent randomness leads them to deny purpose or final causes in nature. This is to make an unsupportable philosophical assumption. Randomness is necessarily circumscribed by purpose.

Believe me, I am just as critical of the Darwinian formula as you are. Neo-Darwinism insists that design is illusory precisely because it assumes that natural laws and chance can explain everything. That is the reason for isolating law, chance, and agency. ID insists that natural laws cannot explain everything. What matters, it seems to me, is not whether randomness is circumscribed by purpose, but whether it can be isolated for purposes of analysis.

If “every created thing manifests design,” as you suggest, then it seems reasonable that such design would sometimes be discernable. We can certainly discern design in an ancient hunter’s spear, without knowing anything about the hunter. Design in nature leaves clues of that same texture. St. Thomas would not scruple at such an inference drawn from data. Indeed, Aquinas is MR. DESIGN, as his five proofs for God’s existence make clear. But the anti-ID camp, of which you are obviously a member, insists that design is not detectable. Or, am I misreading you here.

-----“Still, design is not a final cause. When one understands the traditional Aristotelian-Thomistic doctrine of causes, in the context of continuing Divine Providence, then it becomes apparent there is no need for Divine intervention into the laws of nature to account for the existence of any created thing except the human soul. The soul cannot be a product of nature.”

I still don’t understand why ID violates this principle. Why can’t one perceive the “design” in a DNA without offending St. Thomas? What is wrong with verifying God’s handiwork through science when it is, as it says in Scripture, “manifest.”

 

[Stephen_LB]

Itinerant 1: My post at l35 is confusing because I haven’t leared how to navigate through the system yet.

Begin with —“you wrote,” which is of course, your quote. What follows each time is my response. Everything that precedes that series is your previous comments.

 

[SacredHeartFan]

I think that God could have used a form of evolution of man to make them just they way he wants them. I, however, do NOT believe in the evolution that points out that there is no God, such as the big-bang theory. All I know, and any of us know, is that God created the world and sin entered so he sent his only son. None of us lived millions of years ago, so he may or may not have used a form of evolution.

 

[itinerant1]

I think that God could have used a form of evolution of man to make them just they way he wants them. I, however, do NOT believe in the evolution that points out that there is no God, such as the big-bang theory. All I know, and any of us know, is that God created the world and sin entered so he sent his only son. None of us lived millions of years ago, so he may or may not have used a form of evolution.

Whether or not biological evolution is a fact of nature can be determined by evidence from many sciences such as botany, zoology, archaeology, geology, and so on. There are several theories of biological evolution. Some theories leave no room for God, such as reductionists and materialist accounts of evolution. History has correctly understood Darwin’s version to be materialistic. There is no room for man’s spiritual soul in Darwinism. However, there is a good theory of biological evolution that does not contradict the teachings of the Catholic Church. But it remains up to the natural sciences to show that evolution is a fact of nature. And good science has done a fairly decent job of making a case for evolution.

Big Bang theory does not necessarily rule out God. There is more than one theory of Big Bang. Stephen Hawking’s version intentionally rules out God. So far, though, God remains unimpressed with Hawking’s version.

A good Big Bang theory or hypothesis merely tries to account for the expansion of the universe in the past, present, and future. Of course, God first created *ex nihilo *all physical matter of the universe, which is expanding, i.e. cosmic evolution. Catholics have nothing to worry about with good, scientific Big Bang cosmology. There is nothing in the theory that contradicts Revelation. On this point, read Aquinas and the Big Bang by William E. Carroll.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . .
Big Bang theory does not necessarily rule out God. There is more than one theory of Big Bang. Stephen Hawking’s version intentionally rules out God. So far, though, God remains unimpressed with Hawking’s version.
. …l.

That reminds me of Nietzsche’s declaration that God is dead. Nietzsche is now dead, but God is still going strong.