Catholics and evolution

[Kurieuo]

Just because "design" is mentioned, it does not mean ID is being refered to.

This is getting into precise definitions and meanings of words and phrases and I am not comfortable enough to argue such subtleties.

Fair enough, but then it would be good if you could trust someone familiar with the distinctions. Schonborn, while he would be agreeable with much of ID, is in no way apart of ID.

The statement which suggested ID to me was
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opini ... [quote]the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things. ... Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.

Perhaps I misunderstood the point Schönborn was trying to make.[/quote]
I believe you have misunderstood, but that it is not you fault for many news articles have misrepresented the issue and appear to not know the difference between "design" as discussed within philosophical circles, and Intelligent Design (as advocated by the likes of the Discovery Institute). Nor do many appear to know distinctions between "neo-Darwinian" evolution, and more general theories of common descent. Then again, perhaps they do and they were simply being purposely misleading to generate more hype.

As I mentioned earlier in relation to this NYTimes article, Schonborn never at any point rejected evolution as incompatible with belief in God, nor did he reject evolutionary theories in general. Infact, he quite willingly says that "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true." If this might be true, then assumably he is basing this possibility off the often accepted Darwinian form of evolution. Therefore he never rejects Darwinian evolution. The only thing Schonborn rejected as being impossible for Christians to affirm is the neo-Darwinian form which strictly leaves no space at all for God since it is "an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."

How one can know it was all unplanned? Well I'm sure neo-Darwinists if we say it was planned, then that isn't science. But then by the same token if we assume that it isn't planned, that also doesn't belong in science. Why not leave the question open, and admit science doesn't provide us with the priviledge of knowing such a thing? Anyway, I'm beginning to rant and go off track.

More persuasive to me was the involvement of the DI as mentioned in the NYT article http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/09/scien ... nd&emc=rss

One of the strongest advocates of teaching alternatives to evolution is the Discovery Institute in Seattle, which promotes the idea, termed intelligent design, that the variety and complexity of life on earth cannot be explained except through the intervention of a designer of some sort.

...

I had originally assumed from the involvement of the DI that the "design" referred to by Schönborn was of the DI variety. Rereading the last paragraph, I am no longer so sure. Maybe the DI was just interested in his opposition to atheistic evolution, but that is not his personal opinion alone but the position of the Catholic Church.

I believe the way in which Schonborn has been portrayed as a foremost champion of the ID movement, for example within http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9589656/, is quite misleading. Sure, there much Schonborn would have in common with ID. But so what? You have a lot in common with ID also, as does Swinburne, as does Paul Davies, but this doesn't make them "champions of intelligent design." It is also worth mentioning the Discovery Institute would also never go as far as to say God is responsible for any design, since the area they wish to remain within is simply trying to detect patterns of intelligence, chance, and necessity, and for this one doesn't need to know who did it.

Most of the reaction was to Schonborn's comments regarding evolution, and as we have seen, he never once ruled out evolutoin. What he did rule out was neo-Darwinian evolution which makes the positive assertion that "an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection," and in so doing leaves no room at all for the personal God as advocated by Christians.

Kurieuo

[TomZ]

Schonborn has recanted. That is not to say that he does not still believe in design or that evolution is guided by God. He has not recanted his religious faith. No, he has recanted his assertions that it is a flagrant denial of the scientific evidence to argue against those articles of faith. He has recanted his assertions that reason and the scientific evidence can reach only one conclusion: ID=GOD.

As to what Cardinal Schonbrun has done, being a sound Thomist, what he is asserting is that science has no argument to make with faith; otherwise science becomes not science but theology or philosophy or metaphysics. When science attacks faith, it is scientist(s) who attack faith but not based on science. Their discipline is impartial. It is scientists who are partial and by being so they many times abuse their scientific knowledge.

As an initial contribution to this conversation, I think it would be good to distinguish between Science and several of the other disciplines of knowledge. It is very easy for scientists to speak freely and negatively about design and purpose but when they speak about these topics they addressing subjects outside the realm of science and scientific observation. They have trespassed onto the turf of philosophy and metaphysics.

Whenever we infer purpose to an object or see a design in its constituent parts we are making metaphysical inferences not scientific ones. Science as science, i.e. speaking scientifically, has no right or authority to comment on design or purpose of the lack of them. Science has specific and definite limits. Science can speak of all things insofar as it can count, measure and weigh them but counting, measuring and weighing does not exhaust the aspects of any thing let alone all things.

But in the nineteenth century science grew too big for its own britches and began to comment on all areas of knowledge as if it had a right to authoritatively. When challenged as to that right, science went on the attack and then began to deny that there was any other form of knowledge than scientific and that if any knowledge did not fit the scientific mold it was no true knowledge at all.

The whole problem with evolution begins not in science but in scientists trespassing beyond the limits of science and making purely metaphysical statements but insisting that they are scientific statements. there are many topics science cannot address. Science cannot tell how the universe began because scientific knowledge cannot progress backward to before the BIG BANG. Science has nothing to say about what life is yet thinks it can speak about how life came to be. Science cannot speak about cause and affect because these terms are metaphysical terms applied to metaphysical inferences as to the relationships between objects and incidents. Science cannot speak at all about purpose or design; when it does it has ceased to be science and had become metaphysical speculation, a wholely different discipline with wholly different laws of development and speech. Good scientists make bad metaphysicians!

Evolutionary theory as we know it today is too mixed up with bad metaphysics left over from Darwinism and the nineteenth century pundits who used evolution as a stick to beat organized religion. As a theory it is neither theistic or deistic or atheistic. Any of these tags should alert any true scientist that the conversation has taken a metaphysical turn and has left science behind.

Evolutionary theory attempts to piece together what we have learned about previous animal and geological forms and ages into a coherent story of development. It takes similar forms and links them together as successor and predecessor forms on a long journey to their present day incarnation. Then the theory tries to advance explanations for how these forms could ever be so linked as ancestors and how their development came about. The theory advances several sub-theories as to how this occurred, natural selection, survival of the fittest, random mutation, beneficial mutation, and now punctuated evolution (to account for mass extinctions).

A central problem with the theory is that with as many ancestral creature that we claim to have found, the the historical record is a vast landscape of gaps and we cannot tell conclusively from the evidence that these specimens form ancestral chains as we claim. We move into elaborate constructed fantastical histories of development without hard scientific evidence that for instance the many claimed ancestors of the horse are truly relatives of today's horse.

The theory as yet provides no satisfactory explanation of how speciation occurs so that one form gives rise at some point to a totally different form. The theory does not provide an adequate explanation for how or why after the many extinctions that have occurred in the past, there occur veritable explosions of new species developing or appearing in extremely short geological timeframes.

Some scientists insistence that evolution is driven by random change and accident make of themselves a laughingstock when brought face to fact with incredible biological machines at basic levels. Random change and accident cannot produce organized biological machines such as we know of in the time that the earth has existed. It is open to question whether randomness or accident could ever produce anything that would work to a specific end no matter how much time were allowed. It is the very nature of randomness and accident to produce nothing but confusion and chaos. Yet it is important to understand that randomness and accident are not scientific concepts but concepts that belong more appropriately to philosophy and metaphysics. Randomness and accident are a cop-out or worse a failure of nerve to investigate what other principle(s) could produce the world as we see it now.

As for endorsements of Intelligent Design by competent religious authorities, that would be to commit the same sin as science trespassing on the turf of other disciplines. It would be to thrust a theological or philosophical umpire into the mix and worse an umpire with no authority to speak authoritatively on scientific subjects. The Church is wise to stay within her limits.

As to the teaching of evolution, the terms purpose and design should only be mentioned to say that science has no business using those terms at all as it is not competent to make a judgement as to the design or purpose of the objects it measures, weighs, and counts. Just so it is not competent to say there is no design or no purpose in the objects it studies; its stance should be impartial.

[Believer]

Schonborn has recanted. That is not to say that he does not still believe in design or that evolution is guided by God. He has not recanted his religious faith. No, he has recanted his assertions that it is a flagrant denial of the scientific evidence to argue against those articles of faith. He has recanted his assertions that reason and the scientific evidence can reach only one conclusion: ID=GOD.

As to what Cardinal Schonbrun has done, being a sound Thomist, what he is asserting is that science has no argument to make with faith; otherwise science becomes not science but theology or philosophy or metaphysics. When science attacks faith, it is scientist(s) who attack faith but not based on science. Their discipline is impartial. It is scientists who are partial and by being so they many times abuse their scientific knowledge.

As an initial contribution to this conversation, I think it would be good to distinguish between Science and several of the other disciplines of knowledge. It is very easy for scientists to speak freely and negatively about design and purpose but when they speak about these topics they addressing subjects outside the realm of science and scientific observation. They have trespassed onto the turf of philosophy and metaphysics.

Whenever we infer purpose to an object or see a design in its constituent parts we are making metaphysical inferences not scientific ones. Science as science, i.e. speaking scientifically, has no right or authority to comment on design or purpose of the lack of them. Science has specific and definite limits. Science can speak of all things insofar as it can count, measure and weigh them but counting, measuring and weighing does not exhaust the aspects of any thing let alone all things.

But in the nineteenth century science grew too big for its own britches and began to comment on all areas of knowledge as if it had a right to authoritatively. When challenged as to that right, science went on the attack and then began to deny that there was any other form of knowledge than scientific and that if any knowledge did not fit the scientific mold it was no true knowledge at all.

The whole problem with evolution begins not in science but in scientists trespassing beyond the limits of science and making purely metaphysical statements but insisting that they are scientific statements. there are many topics science cannot address. Science cannot tell how the universe began because scientific knowledge cannot progress backward to before the BIG BANG. Science has nothing to say about what life is yet thinks it can speak about how life came to be. Science cannot speak about cause and affect because these terms are metaphysical terms applied to metaphysical inferences as to the relationships between objects and incidents. Science cannot speak at all about purpose or design; when it does it has ceased to be science and had become metaphysical speculation, a wholely different discipline with wholly different laws of development and speech. Good scientists make bad metaphysicians!

Evolutionary theory as we know it today is too mixed up with bad metaphysics left over from Darwinism and the nineteenth century pundits who used evolution as a stick to beat organized religion. As a theory it is neither theistic or deistic or atheistic. Any of these tags should alert any true scientist that the conversation has taken a metaphysical turn and has left science behind.

Evolutionary theory attempts to piece together what we have learned about previous animal and geological forms and ages into a coherent story of development. It takes similar forms and links them together as successor and predecessor forms on a long journey to their present day incarnation. Then the theory tries to advance explanations for how these forms could ever be so linked as ancestors and how their development came about. The theory advances several sub-theories as to how this occurred, natural selection, survival of the fittest, random mutation, beneficial mutation, and now punctuated evolution (to account for mass extinctions).

A central problem with the theory is that with as many ancestral creature that we claim to have found, the the historical record is a vast landscape of gaps and we cannot tell conclusively from the evidence that these specimens form ancestral chains as we claim. We move into elaborate constructed fantastical histories of development without hard scientific evidence that for instance the many claimed ancestors of the horse are truly relatives of today's horse.

The theory as yet provides no satisfactory explanation of how speciation occurs so that one form gives rise at some point to a totally different form. The theory does not provide an adequate explanation for how or why after the many extinctions that have occurred in the past, there occur veritable explosions of new species developing or appearing in extremely short geological timeframes.

Some scientists insistence that evolution is driven by random change and accident make of themselves a laughingstock when brought face to fact with incredible biological machines at basic levels. Random change and accident cannot produce organized biological machines such as we know of in the time that the earth has existed. It is open to question whether randomness or accident could ever produce anything that would work to a specific end no matter how much time were allowed. It is the very nature of randomness and accident to produce nothing but confusion and chaos. Yet it is important to understand that randomness and accident are not scientific concepts but concepts that belong more appropriately to philosophy and metaphysics. Randomness and accident are a cop-out or worse a failure of nerve to investigate what other principle(s) could produce the world as we see it now.

As for endorsements of Intelligent Design by competent religious authorities, that would be to commit the same sin as science trespassing on the turf of other disciplines. It would be to thrust a theological or philosophical umpire into the mix and worse an umpire with no authority to speak authoritatively on scientific subjects. The Church is wise to stay within her limits.

As to the teaching of evolution, the terms purpose and design should only be mentioned to say that science has no business using those terms at all as it is not competent to make a judgement as to the design or purpose of the objects it measures, weighs, and counts. Just so it is not competent to say there is no design or no purpose in the objects it studies; its stance should be impartial.

YAY fro TomZ !!!!! I completely agee with it all. I really feel no need to subscribe to evolution nor Intelligent Design. I would just rather watch the scientists go out and make their observations and say "more evidence!", yeah, for what? That the earth is natural? Of course it is. It is because we live in a natural world. Nature is the shell of the spiritual, like wearing a costume. The costume is someone or something else but the real you is on the inside. Intelligent Design seems to piggyback some evolution, not all, but some, and Intelligent Design is still using the natural to find the supernatural. Again, HOW do you test the supernatural through nature? One thing that has been done is prayer studies, many have been conducted, some frauds, others not. This is one out of many things, hence living a spiritual life, not a natural materialistic life. Such a thing is bad. Science has become corrupt in fields of origins and the like, I agree, but in other fields, like making complex electronics from natural earth components is amazing and has it's purpose. I think it is better to say "you know what, I don't know, and that is okay, because there is too much to life". So, while I feel that Intelligent Design has it's say, I don't really support it that much anymore from learning a little on it. Both evolution and ID are flawed, and I don't care much for both. You try to live a life for God and not for the material idols of the earth and you WILL have a much better and hopeful life!

[Jay_7]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp

Thats EXACTLY what i believe. It makes alot more sence. And how did everything happen so perfectly. The only thing i dont get is, if dinosaurs lived before water came onto the universe, then how did dinosaurs or anything else live?

Read this btw! http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/behemoth.html

[Yehren]

Since the current Pope says that it is "virtually certain" that all organisms on Earth have a common ancestor, it's virtually certain that such a view is compatible with Christianity.

Most scientists think of it as Gould did; there is a place beyond which science cannot go, and that concerns things like the ultimate purposes for things, the supernatural, and so on.

This is entirely proper. Science is methodologically naturalistic; it is too weak a method to address the supernatural, in much the same way that a plumber can be a theist, and still use methodological naturalism in working on your pipes.

[August]

Since the current Pope says that it is "virtually certain" that all organisms on Earth have a common ancestor, it's virtually certain that such a view is compatible with Christianity.

I have yet to see how anyone, including the Pope, can reconcile the ToE and Christianity.

[Yehren]

I have yet to see how anyone, including the Pope, can reconcile the ToE and Christianity.

Like most Christians, I have yet to see how anyone can show any conflict.

[August]

I have yet to see how anyone, including the Pope, can reconcile the ToE and Christianity.

Like most Christians, I have yet to see how anyone can show any conflict.

Why don't you show how they can be reconciled, instead of just making smart remarks on behalf of "most Christians"?

For one, Christianity teaches that man is the crown of God's creation. If evolution holds true, man will evolve to be something else.

[Yehren]

Why don't you show how they can be reconciled, instead of just making smart remarks on behalf of "most Christians"?

I don't see any conflict. What do you think the conflict might be? You can't reconcile a conflict that doesn't exist.

For one, Christianity teaches that man is the crown of God's creation.

That is true. But it is not our bodies that makes it so. God tells you this in Genesis. Man, like the other animals was brought forth from the Earth, but God breathed into him the breath of life, and he receieved from God an immortal soul. That still happens. That is what makes us the crown of God's creation. We are like Him in knowing good and evil, and being potentially able to have fellowship with Him.

If evolution holds true, man will evolve to be something else.

And has in the past. But if we remained H. erectus or H. neandertalis, He would still love us, and we would be no less the crown of His creation.

[sandy_mcd]

Since the current Pope says that it is "virtually certain" that all organisms on Earth have a common ancestor, it's virtually certain that such a view is compatible with Christianity.

Nice posts Yehren. But this quote only shows evolution is compatible with Roman Catholicism, not all Christianity. [Roman Catholicism is considered aberrant theology here.]

[Yehren]

Yehren observes:
Since the current Pope says that it is "virtually certain" that all organisms on Earth have a common ancestor, it's virtually certain that such a view is compatible with Christianity.

Nice posts Yehren.

Thank you. I've spent a lot of time studying the way science and faith fit.

But this quote only shows evolution is compatible with Roman Catholicism, not all Christianity.

It's the same with Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and most mainline Protestant churches.

[Roman Catholicism is considered aberrant theology here.]

Since slightly over half the world's Christians are Roman Catholics (and they are increasing) "aberrant" would apply to the minority, not the majority of God's church.

[August]

Hey, Yehren and Sandy

What role do you think God played or plays in creation? What does "In the beginning, God created...." mean to you?

[Yehren]

My take on it is that only God is eternal, always having existed, and that He created all things.

Clearly, that creation was both instantaneous, in which He created the universe, and ongoing, in which it continues to unfold.

[August]

My take on it is that only God is eternal, always having existed, and that He created all things.

Clearly, that creation was both instantaneous, in which He created the universe, and ongoing, in which it continues to unfold.

So if God created all things, and since you insist on seperating evolution from religion, how do you bring the two together? Did God create evolution? What exactly did God create in your opinion? Life, or the set of circumstances that produced life, or the first spark of the big bang?

[Jbuza]

Claim, Claim, Claim, Claim, Claim, Claim. Sorry no evidence, but could you swallow it just the same please.