Vatican astronomer likens creationism to superstition

[Stephen_LB]

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.

Intelligent design most definitely is sciene.I can’t imagine why you or Father Oakes would think that ID scientists are confused about formal causes. Anything that has a formal cause is “designed” for a purpose. Thus, a can opener was made to open cans. It exhibits design because it features are ordered so that will serve its end. When we observe a can opener, we have real knowledge of it because a “real” image of the can opener is present in our minds. In other words, we PERCEIVE design, as Aquinas taught, we do not merely CONCEIVE it as Kant mistakenly believed. That is what Aquinas’ “realistic epistemology is all about.

Design is discernable because it leaves “specifically” and “irreducibly complex patterns that can be measured in terms of statistical probability. Intelligent design is the science that detects those patterns. Unlike physical laws or chance happenings, intelligent innovation leaves clues, and it doesn’t matter whether the innovator is a human or a Divine person. That is because God created [1] a rational universe, [2] rational minds, and [3] a correspondence between the two. If that wasn’t the case, either the patterns wouldn’t be real or else we would not be able to discern them.

We are learning that, although evolution has occurred at some level, its mechanism cannot produce all the steps necessary to create a DNA molecule. In other words, the DNA molecule was designed and, against the teaching of the neo-Darwinists, design is more than an “illusion.” Read “The Edge of Evolution,” by ID scientist Michael Behe. This new development does not set well with academia. To protect their careers and their paradigm, evolutionary biologists are trying to kill the intelligent design movement. Their outrageous persecution of ID scientists will be documented in the upcoming movie, “expelled.” Sadly, many Catholics have allowed themselves to become a part of this movement.

 

[drpmjhess]

To protect their careers and their paradigm, evolutionary biologists are trying to kill the intelligent design movement. Their outrageous persecution of ID scientists will be documented in the upcoming movie, “expelled.” Sadly, many Catholics have allowed themselves to become a part of this movement.

The move expelled is an extended infomercial for Intelligent Design Creationism, and will be an abysmal flop. There is no conspiracy in academe against ID, because it is not science, only a philosophical opinion. It forwards no testable hypotheses, and has already been blown out of the water at the Kitzmiller trial in Dover, PA.

We could make s convincing a movie about astrologers who were denied tenure in astronomy departments, or numerologists who did not achieve it in mathematics departments. It is just as unfair to deny astrologers tenure as ID philosophers.

Petrus

 

[Stephen_LB]

The move expelled is an extended infomercial for Intelligent Design Creationism, and will be an abysmal flop. There is no conspiracy in academe against ID, because it is not science, only a philosophical opinion. It forwards no testable hypotheses, and has already been blown out of the water at the Kitzmiller trial in Dover, PA.

We could make s convincing a movie about astrologers who were denied tenure in astronomy departments, or numerologists who did not achieve it in mathematics departments. It is just as unfair to deny astrologers tenure as ID philosophers.

Petrus

Your claim that ID is not science does not hold up. What is your substantive response to the second paragraph in my previous post.

At the Dover Trial, Judge Jones proved that he doesn’t have a clue… He doesn’t even know the difference between creation science and intelligent design, meaning he doesn’t know the difference between a presupposition and an inference.

For a review of the movie, “Expelled,” google Tom Bethell reviews Expelled." The number of ID proponents persecuted by the neo-Darwinist establishment pales in comparison to the number of those who are afraid to open their mouth. When the dam finally breaks, you will hear thousands of horror stories.

 

[itinerant1]

Intelligent design most definitely is sciene.I can’t imagine why you or Father Oakes would think that ID scientists are confused about formal causes. Anything that has a formal cause is “designed” for a purpose.

You are confused on who said what. Fr. Oakes is not addressing formal cause as the problem. The problem with I.D. is a conflation of primary and secondary cause in regard to final cause.

Next, I.D. is claiming that not everything exhibits design. This is where I brought up formal cause as the basis for an objection to I.D. on this point. Everything in nature from atoms to a whales consist of substantial matter and substantial form. After you have reviewed what Father Oaks said, review my earlier post in which I addresses Aristotelian-Thomistic doctrine of cause, as well as the nature of formal cause. So, you are arguing my point and think it is what I.D. is saying.

Design is discernable because it leaves “specifically” and “irreducibly complex patterns that can be measured in terms of statistical probability. Intelligent design is the science that detects those patterns. Unlike physical laws or chance happenings, intelligent innovation leaves clues, and it doesn’t matter whether the innovator is a human or a Divine person. That is because God created [1] a rational universe, [2] rational minds, and [3] a correspondence between the two. If that wasn’t the case, either the patterns wouldn’t be real or else we would not be able to discern them.

I would disagree and say that design is discernible whether or not the pattern is irreducibly complex.

Also, you say that I.D. is the science that detects those patterns. You have a problem here in that you have identified the pattern as a result of the formal cause. The discipline that studies formal causality is philosophy, not the natural sciences. This is typically the problem exhibited by I.D. advocates. They do not recognize the proper role and scope of the natural sciences. Phillip Johnson wants to redefine science by taking it out of the realm of “methodological naturalism”. Johnson maintains the proper basis for the sciences is John 1:1-3. Hence, I.D. destroys the traditional boundaries between the natural sciences, philosophy, and revealed theology.

On this matter, the Vatican newpaper, L’Osservatore Romano,recognized this problem with I.D. and said, “Intelligent Design does not belong to science and there is no justification for the pretext that it be taught as a scientific theory alongside the Darwinian explanation.” (January 17, 2006).

We are learning that, although evolution has occurred at some level, its mechanism cannot produce all the steps necessary to create a DNA molecule. In other words, the DNA molecule was designed and, against the teaching of the neo-Darwinists, design is more than an “illusion.” Read “The Edge of Evolution,” by ID scientist Michael Behe. This new development does not set well with academia. To protect their careers and their paradigm, evolutionary biologists are trying to kill the intelligent design movement. Their outrageous persecution of ID scientists will be documented in the upcoming movie, “expelled.” Sadly, many Catholics have allowed themselves to become a part of this movement.

Extreme Darwinism has it own major problems. However, it does not follow that I.D. is the solution. It is not within the proper role of the natural sciences to resort to God as the explanation of biological complexity. God it the ultimate cause of biological complexity, but the scientist must give an account in terms if natural causes. If he resorts to affirming or denying the existence and role of God, then he is no longer speaking as a scientist. He is speaking, rather, as a man or as a philosopher.

 

[itinerant1]

Your claim that ID is not science does not hold up. What is your substantive response to the second paragraph in my previous post.

At the Dover Trial, Judge Jones proved that he doesn’t have a clue… He doesn’t even know the difference between creation science and intelligent design, meaning he doesn’t know the difference between a presupposition and an inference.

For a review of the movie, “Expelled,” google Tom Bethell reviews Expelled." The number of ID proponents persecuted by the neo-Darwinist establishment pales in comparison to the number of those who are afraid to open their mouth. When the dam finally breaks, you will hear thousands of horror stories.

I am very well aware of the ruthless “political” nature of science. That does not change my opinion about I.D.

I.D. cannot cite any strictly scientific evidence in its favor. Also, I.D. has no coherent scientific methods or mechanisms. Hence, I.D. is not a science.

 

[drpmjhess]

At the Dover Trial, Judge Jones proved that he doesn’t have a clue… He doesn’t even know the difference between creation science and intelligent design, meaning he doesn’t know the difference .

If ID and its allied disciplines – astrology, alchemy, and Galenic physiology – were real sciences, there would be ID departments in major universities. There would be ID associations, and ID peer-reviewed journals. Because there are none of these, we have to assume that its proponents are mere cranks orbiting the far outer reaches of the intellectual solar system.

The movie Expelled now has a release date of April 18, but it is so embarrassingly bad that its makers are now making arrangements to pay cinemas in advance to show it. This is the reverse of the usual practice in capitalism, in which movies are made with the expectation that people will pay to come watch them.

Regarding Dover, the trial was an embarrassment for the Thomas More Law Center, for Michael Behe, and for all the others involved who don’t fully comprehend how science works. Catholic biologist Ken Miller was brilliant; so was Judge Jones.

 

[Stephen_LB]

------intinerant: "After you have reviewed what Father Oaks said, review my earlier post in which I addresses Aristotelian-Thomistic doctrine of cause, as well as the nature of formal cause. So, you are arguing my point and think it is what I.D. is saying.”

On the contrary. From a scientific vantage point, we know that all physical events are caused by law, chance, or agency. That is not speculation; it is scientific fact. Think of it this way. God created a DNA molecule through design (direct intelligent innovation), while creating snowflakes and moon craters through natural means (law and contingency), In this case, we are considering both primary and secondary causes. There is no confusion.

ID is a science that allows us to distinguish apparent design from real design. We know that some things must be directly designed because there is no evolutionary pathway that proceeds from simple organic forms to complex information (DNA). RV+NS can accomplish many things, but it can’t accomplish that. Aquinas taught that God can create SOME things through (chance, contingency) but it does not follow that he creates ALL things in that fashion? To read Aquinas that way is to read him selectively.

-----itinerant:I would disagree and say that design is discernible whether or not the pattern is irreducibly complex.”

If the patterns are not both specified and complex, they were not designed, which is another way of saying that they simply “formed.” If design is discernable, then it exhibits specified complexity. There is no way to discern design except by recognizing that the patterns exhibit specified complexity. That is what a design inference is.

According to TE and Darwinism design is illusory. TE signs on to the Darwinist notion that law and chance can create information. Miller, Barr, Collins and other TEs posit that design in “inherent” in the evolutionary process, but they also insist that such design is not detectable. In effect, they are playing word games. If they were to acknowledge that design is real, they would be in the ID camp. TE acknowledges the Darwinian process, which by definition, rules out design. Darwinism is an anti-teleological process, and TE acknowledges that process, except that it explains its origins differently. Presumably, God established physical and chemical laws that would allow matter to evolve in such a way that RV+NS would some day “kick in.” In such a case, the design could be CONCEIVED but it could never be PERCEIVED. In other words, design is just as illusory for TE as it is for Darwinism.

------itinerant: “Also, you say that I.D. is the science that detects those patterns. You have a problem here in that you have identified the pattern as a result of the formal cause. The discipline that studies formal causality is philosophy, not the natural sciences. This is typically the problem exhibited by I.D. advocates. They do not recognize the proper role and scope of the natural sciences. Phillip Johnson wants to redefine science by taking it out of the realm of “methodological naturalism”. Johnson maintains the proper basis for the sciences is John 1:1-3. Hence, I.D. destroys the traditional boundaries between the natural sciences, philosophy, and revealed theology.”

The line of demarcation between science and non-science always has and always will be subject to review. Methodological naturalism cannot address the problem of information, and is therefore inadequate for the task of doing cutting edge science. In any case, no such constraints were imposed on the great scientists of the past. They believed that they were “thinking God’s thoughts after him.”

ID can detect design patterns from any source, human, superhuman, or Divine. TE’s continue to misunderstand this. . They insist that ID is not science, but, tellingly, and ironically, they object on philosophical and sometimes even theological grounds. Ken Miller, for example, argues against ID on the grounds that a God who does not create through secondary causes is not as powerful as a God who does. Therefore, in his judgment, ID is an insult to God. That is pure theological speculation. I could and would argue the other way.

. ------itinerant: “On this matter, the Vatican newpaper, L’Osservatore Romano,recognized this problem with I.D. and said, “Intelligent Design does not belong to science and there is no justification for the pretext that it be taught as a scientific theory alongside the Darwinian explanation.” (January 17, 2006).”

Arguments from authority are not appropriate in this situation, especially when the identity of the author is unclear. In any case, the Church has not spoken on this matter either way. I can find Catholic prelates who take the alternative position. Archbishop Wuerl has officially endorsed intelligent design, and he is not uneducated about the philosophy of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas.

--------“Extreme Darwinism has it own major problems. However, it does not follow that I.D. is the solution. It is not within the proper role of the natural sciences to resort to God as the explanation of biological complexity. God it the ultimate cause of biological complexity, but the scientist must give an account in terms if natural causes. If he resorts to affirming or denying the existence and role of God, then he is no longer speaking as a scientist. He is speaking, rather, as a man or as a philosopher.”

If he is drawing inferences from data and his methods are rigorous and measured, he is doing science. That would include, among other things, an archeologist drawing inferences about an ancient hunters spear, an SETI researcher studying sound impulses, a criminologist searching for crime motives, or an ID scientist detecting design

 

[Stephen_LB]

---

If ID and its allied disciplines – astrology, alchemy, and Galenic physiology – were real sciences, there would be ID departments in major universities. There would be ID associations, and ID peer-reviewed journals. Because there are none of these, we have to assume that its proponents are mere cranks orbiting the far outer reaches of the intellectual solar system.

---------The movie Expelled now has a release date of April 18, but it is so embarrassingly bad that its makers are now making arrangements to pay cinemas in advance to show it. This is the reverse of the usual practice in capitalism, in which movies are made with the expectation that people will pay to come watch them.

-----------Regarding Dover, the trial was an embarrassment for the Thomas More Law Center, for Michael Behe, and for all the others involved who don’t fully comprehend how science works. Catholic biologist Ken Miller was brilliant; so was Judge Jones.

That is precisely what all the fuss is about. ID scientists are not allowed to ply their trade in the university because the neo-Darwinist establishment is fearful of having is naturalistic paradigm challenged.

We have no way of knowing whether the movie is good or bad until it comes out. Some of the preliminary reviews have been quite good. It usually depends on the ideology of the reviewer. In any case, whether the movie makes any money or not has nothing to do with the content. What is your response to the many documented cases of persecution that make up the substance of the film?

Actually, Miller was not brilliant at all. He objected to intelligent design because, in his judgment, God is not sufficiently powerful unless he creates solely through secondary causes. That is pure theological speculation and is irrelevant to the scientific question under discussion. Judge Jones failed to make the basic intellectual distinction between creation science and intelligent design. That means that he cannot, as a practical application, differentiate difference between a presupposition and an inference. Further, Jones did not distinguish between the partisan and irresponsible creationists on the school board, and the ID scientists who wanted nothing to do with them. That is a pretty sad example of judicial non-wisdom. In any case, I have yet to hear a good argument against ID as science that doesn’t fall back on Judge Jones’ uninformed decision

 

[edwest2]

The biology textbook is atheistic. It excludes critical information. Evolution, of some type, could not have occurred without God. This means the biology textbook is lacking in information that is vital for each individual human being.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

---------That is precisely what all the fuss is about. ID scientists are not allowed to ply their trade in the university because the neo-Darwinist establishment is fearful of having is naturalistic paradigm challenged.

We have no way of knowing whether the movie is good or bad until it comes out. Some of the preliminary reviews have been quite good… What is your response to the many documented cases of persecution that make up the substance of the film?

Stephen, two points:

(1) There is no trade to ply, because there is no science behind intelligent design. ID offers no coherent research program; in fact, it kills science because of its very premise: “x is irreducibly complex and therefore cannot be further researched.” The bacterial flagellum is a case in point: Michael Behe and others refused to investigate any further, declaring it to be irreducibly complex. Nick Matzke has shown that it is in fact not irreducibly complex: talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

(2) The “documented cases of persecution” are not in fact cases of persecution. People are denied tenure for many reasons, often because they simply don’t publish in their field. The case is not made in “Expelled” for the six “martyrs” having been rejected for their ID philosophy.

 

[drpmjhess]

The biology textbook is atheistic. It excludes critical information. Evolution, of some type, could not have occurred without God. This means the biology textbook is lacking in information that is vital for each individual human being.
God bless,
Ed

No, the book lacks no information, anymore than does a plumbing manual which begins with a description of tools and copper pipes rather than a theological discourse. You wouldn’t expect a discussion of the divine nature in at the beginning of a biology textbook any more than you would at the beginning of a geology or mathematics textbook.

 

[drpmjhess]

--------- Judge Jones failed to make the basic intellectual distinction between creation science and intelligent design. /QUOTE]

What is the distinction between Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design Creationism?

 

[Stephen_LB]

Stephen, two points:

(1) There is no trade to ply, because there is no science behind intelligent design. ID offers no coherent research program; in fact, it kills science because of its very premise: “x is irreducibly complex and therefore cannot be further researched.” The bacterial flagellum is a case in point: Michael Behe and others refused to investigate any further, declaring it to be irreducibly complex. Nick Matzke has shown that it is in fact not irreducibly complex: talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

(2) The “documented cases of persecution” are not in fact cases of persecution. People are denied tenure for many reasons, often because they simply don’t publish in their field. The case is not made in “Expelled” for the six “martyrs” having been rejected for their ID philosophy.

drpmjhess: Once again, I submit that the line of demarcation between sceince and non-science is a function of what is known and not known. As long as we had no idea about the complexity of a DNA molecule and the need to consider “information,” methodological naturalism made some sense. Allowing for a design inference presents the possibilith of doing some reverse engineering. It doesn’t threaten the scientific method, because it is not a “God of the Gaps theory.” If there was a chance that ID scientists would confuse intelligent agency with natural causes, I would be with you. But the science is designed to prevent that very thing.

I spent some time on the Ben Stein blog, and several people came forth that were not part of the roster of celebrated victims. They told their horror stories and I believe them. Sure, there are two sides to every story, and some incompetents may cry persecution to rationalize their poor performance. But I don’t think that was happening in those cases that I heard about. Also, there are other things besides losing your job. Michael Behe’s associates a Lehigh will not even speak to him. Professor Marks had his lab shut down at Baylor. Both of these men are extraordinarily accomplished. They should not have to put up with this. As Fulton J. Sheen once wrote, “jealousy is the tribute that mediocrity pays to genuis.”

 

[Stephen_LB]

--------- Judge Jones failed to make the basic intellectual distinction between creation science and intelligent design. /QUOTE]

What is the distinction between Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design Creationism?

Creationism is a derogatory term used to conflate CS and ID in order to muddy the debate waters. Creation science begins with presupposition; ID begins with observation. Each has a pedigree that goes back over two thousand years. CS has roots in Tertullian, Anselm, and Augustine; ID has its roots in Aristotle, Aquinas, and Paley. The former is faith based; the latter is empirically based.

 

[drpmjhess]

drpmjhess;3359373:

Creationism is a derogatory term used to conflate CS and ID in order to muddy the debate waters. Creation science begins with presupposition; ID begins with observation. Each has a pedigree that goes back over two thousand years. CS has roots in Tertullian, Anselm, and Augustine; ID has its roots in Aristotle, Aquinas, and Paley. The former is faith based; the latter is empirically based.

Don’t confuse “creationism” in the sense of the Christian doctrine that the conditions for all things were primordially created by God – Augustine would have agreed with this – with the “creationism” of fundamentalists today who deny biological and cosmological evolution. Augustine would not have agreed with so-called “creation science”; nor would Saint Thomas, who carefully distinguished between what can be known by science and what can be known through religious faith.

 

[drpmjhess]

drpmjhess: Once again, I submit that the line of demarcation between sceince and non-science is a function of what is known and not known. As long as we had no idea about the complexity of a DNA molecule and the need to consider “information,” methodological naturalism made some sense."

Stephen, this is perilously close to the god-of-the-gaps argument.

 

[drpmjhess]

Michael Behe’s associates a Lehigh will not even speak to him. Professor Marks had his lab shut down at Baylor. Both of these men are extraordinarily accomplished. They should not have to put up with this. As Fulton J. Sheen once wrote, “jealousy is the tribute that mediocrity pays to genuis.”

Yes, not speaking to a colleague is not at all nice. But Behe and Marks hardly represent genius. In fact, what mystified Behe in Darwin’s Black Box is not at all mystifying to a competent graduate student. Saying “I have no idea how x happens” is not sufficient argument to seal it off from scientific investigation.

 

[drpmjhess]

Professor Marks had his lab shut down at Baylor."

Professor Marks’ “lab” was a website, without a physical location. I don’t know why it was shut down.

 

[edwest2]

No, the book lacks no information, anymore than does a plumbing manual which begins with a description of tools and copper pipes rather than a theological discourse. You wouldn’t expect a discussion of the divine nature in at the beginning of a biology textbook any more than you would at the beginning of a geology or mathematics textbook.

None of the other books you cite relate to human origins. The anti-God movement in the United States loves evolution and hates Christianity. The biology text provides incomplete and misleading information about the origin and dignity of the human person.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I too do not take Genesis literally. If I did, I would not be able to explain which creation story was the correct one. The one in chapter 1 or the one in Chapter 3. Suffice to say, God created all that is. Are you saying this Vatican astronomer is denying God created everything that is. That is my understanding of creationism. If I took the Bible literally, I would have lost my eyes, hands and feet long ago.
Deacon Ed B