S
snarflemike
Guest
“I” being a faithful Catholic with an engineering degree, who sees absolutely no conflict between true faith, true science and true reason. So what should I think about Intelligent Design, and why?
- Status
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Not much.
On the surface it is attractive, and I used to be an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent myself – for me being both a biochemist and a Catholic it seemed somehow logical. But then I studied evolution some more, and I decided that ID very likely has no merit.
The idea of ‘Irreducible Complexity’ which at first seemed logical to me, is flawed, see:
talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html
I also discovered that the origin of life very likely occurred by natural causes (which, contra both ID proponents and atheists, are not ‘godless’ causes). I even have written a review article on the research on the origin of life for Talkorigins.org, a leading evolution website.
talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html
As far as design arguments go, instead of embracing ID, I find the argument from the fine-tuning of the laws of nature very strong:
home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm
Obviously, I also think that the human mind is designed, in the sense that it needs the rational soul as an immaterial component – the brain on its own is not capable of rational thought, even though is a necessary instrument for thinking.
D
dshix
Guest
Intelligent design and evolution are not mutually exclusive; they fit together quite nicely, actually.
G
GEddie
Guest
Does it really matter at all where we got our natural bodies; seeing as how we do not get to keep them?
Would it not be better to set aside unsolvable quandaries about our origins and work off our Purgatory, so as to prepare for our pneumatikon soma?
ICXC NIKA
Would it not be better to set aside unsolvable quandaries about our origins and work off our Purgatory, so as to prepare for our pneumatikon soma?
ICXC NIKA
C
CompSciGuy
Guest
I found this post very helpful, thank you.
C
CompSciGuy
Guest
This is bad theology, seeing as the Catholic Church teaches the literal resurrection of our bodies on the last day.
S
snarflemike
Guest
Fides et ratio. Faith seeking understanding. I don’t see why seeking divine truth through the natural world and natural reason should or must conflict with seeking divine truth through divine revelation. God declared his creation good, and our creation very good. The bible says that the heavens proclaim the glory of God. For reasons such as these, I think we are justified in seeking to know God better through his handiwork.
T
tonyrey
Guest
CCC 280 Creation is the foundation of “all God’s saving plans,” the "beginning of the history of salvation"117 that culminates in Christ. Conversely, the mystery of Christ casts conclusive light on the mystery of creation and reveals **the end **for which “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”: from the beginning, God envisaged the glory of the new creation in Christ.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Indisputable!
G
grannymh
Guest
Pardon me.
By any chance, are you referring to Catholicism as true faith?
If so, interpretations of current natural science theories directly oppose Catholic doctrines regarding human origin, human nature, and subsequently Original Sin. We have to watch out for extrapolations to universal conclusions, which are not warranted by the evidence. Realizing the valid limitations of the scientific (inductive) method is essential.
Regarding this comment in post 7.
“Fides et ratio. Faith seeking understanding. I don’t see why seeking divine truth through the natural world and natural reason should or must conflict with seeking divine truth through divine revelation.”
In this century,
it is not the seeking which is the problem – it is the interpretation of the “findings” which oppose some foundational Catholic doctrines. Divine Revelation trumps!
As for thoughts about Intelligent Design, I personally prefer dealing directly with molecular biology, paleoanthropology and archaeology.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Unless any Catholic is not willing to argue that God is an intelligent designer, the argument is eminently reasonable. Even Isaac Newton thought so, and he was not Catholic…
“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton
“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton
B
bzkoss236
Guest
I could be wrong, but I feel that there is some confusion in terminology.
I think people are confusing ID with Creationism and Evolution with Evolutionary Theory.
Intelligent Design states that God designed creation, I don’t think it explicitly says how He did it, just that we are created by God.
Evolution is simply the changing of things over time.
Evolutionary Theory is the evolution of creatures through randomness in their DNA, but ID and Evolution can work together to form what I typically call Guided Evolution, that is God’s hand manipulating creation over time.
I think it would help if, in such discussions, common language is used to prevent confusion.
I am of the GE persuasion, but the Evolutionary Theory (evolution without God) has no place in Christianity.
I think people are confusing ID with Creationism and Evolution with Evolutionary Theory.
Intelligent Design states that God designed creation, I don’t think it explicitly says how He did it, just that we are created by God.
Evolution is simply the changing of things over time.
Evolutionary Theory is the evolution of creatures through randomness in their DNA, but ID and Evolution can work together to form what I typically call Guided Evolution, that is God’s hand manipulating creation over time.
I think it would help if, in such discussions, common language is used to prevent confusion.
I am of the GE persuasion, but the Evolutionary Theory (evolution without God) has no place in Christianity.
G
grannymh
Guest
I noticed that you used the term “things” as in "simply the changing of “things” over time. Where evolution contradicts the Catholic doctrines of human origin and human nature is that evolution cannot account for the spiritual soul which, by the way, is why the human person is not a [scientific] “thing’”.
Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 355-368, especially CCC 357 & 364
P
perro_sarnoso
Guest
God is intelligent beyond any human understanding
and
He designed all that is visible and invisible.
I’m just a many dog.
and
He designed all that is visible and invisible.
I’m just a many dog.
E
edwest2
Guest
I think it has a great deal of merit. I suggest you read the following:
uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-do-we-invoke-darwin/
And this book:
Programming of Life By Donald E. Johnson who looks at cells from a computer and information processing perspective. From the back cover: “Each cell of an organism has thousands of interacting computers reading and processing digital information, using digital programs and digital codes to communicate and translate information.”
Peace,
Ed
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Ed
** From the back cover: “Each cell of an organism has thousands of interacting computers reading and processing digital information, using digital programs and digital codes to communicate and translate information.”**
Too obviously designed to be an accident!
** From the back cover: “Each cell of an organism has thousands of interacting computers reading and processing digital information, using digital programs and digital codes to communicate and translate information.”**
Too obviously designed to be an accident!
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
Needs to be subordinated to teleology, and even then it’s (IMO) it’s a shakey foundation.
Traditionally Catholic apologists proved God’s existence by His being necessary for all reality - or change in reality specifically - right here and right now (God’s immanence).
ID theory and evolutionary theory play a dangerous dance, again IMO: Darwin knew nothing of genetics, which affirms teleology undeniably in nature.
BTW, the fact that people ask “What was/is the reason” for anything that happens in the world is itself a proof of mind operating in matter: matter, by itself, cannot have a reason for anything; notwithstanding, every scientist seeks to know the reason (which implies motive somehwere in the causal series) for things: he assumes the world is such that everything has something accessible to him; namely, a reason or a rational operation. Now that would in fact be crazy and pointless if he actually believed the world was fundamentally and necessarily just matter: it would in that case be totally irrational or, at least, we would be behaving irrationally for always expecting and inisting on a rational explanation for anything.
E
edwest2
Guest
Come on. You can put those exact words in N to the X different ways that they uh… wait a minute. You’re right!Ed
** From the back cover: “Each cell of an organism has thousands of interacting computers reading and processing digital information, using digital programs and digital codes to communicate and translate information.”**
Too obviously designed to be an accident!
Ed
I
Ion
Guest
Let’s see what the article says:
"1.Add a part.
2.Make it necessary. "
- Add a part.
Now, beside my appendix, which was removed just in case, because it might have been created me some fever, what other useless body parts are there? Are there animals with useless body parts?
My opinion on Catholic attitude about e. theory is that it only gives some slack, so a scientist can wonder through all sort of hypotheses, and do his work, but in no way is a foundation.
Intelligent design, is too inteligent for us and we really can’t say anything about details. But at least creationist do not “imagine” alll sort of fantastic theories.
In the given example in the article, there are three parts and all three are necessary, before the process, and also after.
P
polytropos
Guest
There are lots of animals with useless body parts (we call them “vestigial” because they are vestiges of evolutionary history). Not just the human appendix but the human tailbone, for instance, does not really serve a purpose (although it serves a purpose for other species with tails).
A common fallacy is that evolution begets “perfect” organisms (or that evolution is a process which will forever continue to “improve” organisms). This is true to a very limited extent - but it’s also relevant that evolution has to work with adapting what it has, which means you wind up with tailbones that do nothing. The relevant sections of DNA are not easily removed by mutation, but over time, because having a useless tail requires more energy and resources, organisms with smaller tails succeed more. So we have a reduced tailbone but not no tailbone. Likewise we have a small appendix that pretty much does nothing - it only causes a problem when you get appendicitis or something. But no one in the population has no appendix, so we are not evolving towards having no appendix - there is nothing in the gene pool that would move us in that direction.
The human skeleton is not even perfect. There are a lot of problems with it, and one could easily design a skeleton that withstands stress better. But reaching one of those better designs would require such an “overhaul” to genetic code that it couldn’t happen… because evolutionary change occurs gradually, one mutation at a time, and the intermediary phenotypes would not be better than the current phenotype. Now, this does not undermine human’s nature of being created in God’s image because we were not made to have a perfect skeleton.
- Status