Has the new Dark Age finally arrived? Catholic Church may condemn Evolution.

[Icerigger]

It looks like the new pope has now allied himself with the ID crowd.



Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html

[Scott Plaid]

an abdication of human intelligence. It doesn't matter what word actually mean, if you use them how you like, and you have a large croud cheering for you. :mad:

[Marley23]

What bugs me more about this is that, if I recall correctly, Schonborn was acclaimed as one of the younger and more liberal Papabilia few months ago. That said, it's been a while since the RCC has been on the forefront of science, and if they chose to isolate themselves from the Western Catholics by contradicting science, they'll end up paying the continuing price.

[Scott Plaid]

Aw snap. I thought this was the pit. That is the problem with the find "New Post" button Well, this isn't monday yet. Can I have that remark stricken from the record?

[Scott Plaid]

Let me try and turn this around. How do catholics here feel about this issue?

[rfgdxm]

Related news report:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/09/science/09cardinal.html

Note this is just what one cardinal says. I'm not sure the rest of the church leadership will agree.

[Thudlow Boink]

Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at allI agree with this. Science, as such, has no business saying that the universe was not designed any more than it has saying the universe was designed.

[Stratocaster]

EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was "more than just a hypothesis," defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.I am a Catholic. I was taught evolution in high school and college. I am not at all surprised to see the Church simultaneously hold that evolution is valid, while pointing out the existence of intelligent design. I believe it myself, though I would assess intelligent design as more an act of faith than the result of a scientifically precise syllogism, a position I suspect the Church does not exactly hold.

My son is currently being taught evolution in Catholic school. I don't believe there's any danger of the RCC condemning evolution. I am also amused at anyone being shocked at the RCC surmising that the universe cannot be the result of "blind fate or chance," rather than being directed by the hand of God. It's sort of our Church's most basic premise, dontcha know.

[Stratocaster]

I was taught evolution in high school and college.Just to be clear: this occurred in Catholic schools.

[Marley23]

Note this is just what one cardinal says. I'm not sure the rest of the church leadership will agree.
He's not just your Average Cardinal Joe, though. He's a well-regarded guy who, in the words of the New York Times,
is close to Pope Benedict XVI
and he is on the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education.
I agree with this. Science, as such, has no business saying that the universe was not designed any more than it has saying the universe was designed.
Can you tell me when "science" said that? Intelligent design is a faith-based position. Stating that there is a lack of evidence for a designer is not.

[ultrafilter]

Can you tell me when "science" said that? Intelligent design is a faith-based position. Stating that there is a lack of evidence for a designer is not.

The position that there's a lack of evidence for design is not the same as the position that the universe was not designed. Science can take the first but not the last.

[GIGObuster]

Let me try and turn this around. How do catholics here feel about this issue?
Former Catholic here that still embraced some of it because the church at least approved evolution before:

IF it is true that evolution will be condemned, I feel now that I will never come back, and now I will be tempted to convert my family into agnostics! Instead of the church having here a person that defended Catholics for being a little progressive, now not even that will remain in me. Instead of having a passive opponent, now they will get an active adversary.

I do think many reasonable Catholics will reach this conclusion.
.

[Marley23]

The position that there's a lack of evidence for design is not the same as the position that the universe was not designed. Science can take the first but not the last.
I'm aware of that. I'm unfamiliar with "science" saying the universe wasn't designed. "Chance and necessity," the words Schonborn made a big deal of, are not a value judgment and do not preclude a designer.

[Stratocaster]

Former Catholic here that still embraced some of it because the church at least approved evolution before:

IF it is true that evolution will be condemned, I feel now that I will never come back, and now I will be tempted to convert my family into agnostics! Instead of the church having here a person that defended Catholics for being a little progressive, now not even that will remain in me. Instead of having a passive opponent, now they will get an active adversary.

I do think many reasonable Catholics will reach this conclusion.
.Stop! Stop reacting to a straw man of an editorial, transmogrified into a shell of a thread issue. Right now, in the good ol' U.S. of A., in Catholic schools, evolution is being taught as scientifically sound. Nothing has changed, despite the NYT editorial writer's strong wish that it was otherwise.

[GIGObuster]

Stop! Stop reacting to a straw man of an editorial, transmogrified into a shell of a thread issue. Right now, in the good ol' U.S. of A., in Catholic schools, evolution is being taught as scientifically sound. Nothing has changed, despite the NYT editorial writer's strong wish that it was otherwise.
I said IF, so cool down too. :)

[Magiver]

I had evolution beaten into me by nuns (not really, they were the BPOE) so I don't think the Church will step off the cliff of sanity. If that happened there are Christian offshoots of Catholicism that are so close in practice to the Church (without the guilt, pomp, or circumstance) that it would be nothing more than a quick name change on the building.

How do you say "bite me" in Latin.

[Sage Rat]

Former Catholic here that still embraced some of it because the church at least approved evolution before:

IF it is true that evolution will be condemned, I feel now that I will never come back, and now I will be tempted to convert my family into agnostics! Instead of the church having here a person that defended Catholics for being a little progressive, now not even that will remain in me. Instead of having a passive opponent, now they will get an active adversary.

I do think many reasonable Catholics will reach this conclusion.
.
I had believed that, in Catholicism, the Pope is God's representative on Earth. Wouldn't believing that any position he could come forward with could possibly be false indicate that you already have lost your faith in the Catholic doctrine?

*not trying to be argumentative mind. I am an atheist*

[Mehitabel]

<embarrassed throat-clearing>

Another Catholic here that was taught it was fine and dandy to believe in evolution, as long as you didn't dispense with God altogether--sort of a first cause of it all, created the universe blah blah blah, and next week we're going to see the dinosaurs downtown and look how the bones in your hand are just like a bat's wing!

I hope this is all we hear about it. No matter how embarrassed I get about my church sometimes at least we didn't have this particular idiocy hanging over us.

[Stratocaster]

I said IF, so cool down too. :)And IF the Catholic Church starts teaching that killing babies, slicing them up and serving them as appetizers is OK, I'll be pissed off to the point of turning Lutheran. In the meantime, I'll reserve my outrage. ;)

[Campion]

First: define the Church's position, as stated in the Op-Ed cited in the OP. The Church's position, stated succinctly, is:An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist.As support for this notion, and to refute the claims that Pope John Paul II was an unreconstructed Darwinist, the Cardinal quotes Pope Benedict.We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.
So where does that leave us? The Church agrees that evolution occurs, but disagrees with Darwin and his intellectual progeny that evolution occurs randomly. Because, you see, if it's all random, what does that tell us about the nature of a divine being?

Bottom line, it should hardly come as a surprise that the Church believes God had a hand in creating the world and directing its development. It isn't that the Church plans to deny the mechanics of evolution; simply that the Church denies that evolution occurs through an unguided random process. I don't think this is a call for a return to the Dark Ages; the Church does not deny evolution, only that it isn't the product of the will of a divine being. Nor will the Church tell the scientists they are wrong, when the scientists say, but it's all random! natural selection! not predicted or controlled or guided, but sheer random evolution!

Yes, says the Church. That's what He wants us to think, but we know better.

Tempest in a teapot, indeed.

[Skammer]

Maybe I'm just a cave man - or descended from them - but I don't see anything in the quote above that indicates that the RC church is backing away from accepting evolution as the natural mechanism by which God created all the biodiversity in the world.
the immanent design evident in nature is real. That does not mean that evolution didn't happen; it means that it worked according to an ultimate grand design.
Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all As has been pointed out already, science doesn't have to 'explain away' the appearance of design. Science has come up with an acceptable theory of the origins of species, and it is not in science's purview to say whether this was only random chance or divine influence.

I think proclaiming a new Dark Age for the Catholic Churh is wildly (and irresponsibly) off base. I don't really see a change in their doctrine, nor do I have a problem reconciling it with modern scientific theory (i.e., evolution).

[rfgdxm]

I'm aware of that. I'm unfamiliar with "science" saying the universe wasn't designed. "Chance and necessity," the words Schonborn made a big deal of, are not a value judgment and do not preclude a designer.
I'd think God could roll dice if he wanted to.

[jsgoddess]

Instead of the church having here a person that defended Catholics for being a little progressive, now not even that will remain in me. Instead of having a passive opponent, now they will get an active adversary.

Agreed. And I have defended the church on occasion, despite my having abandoned it some time ago.

But I simply can't believe it! This isn't going to happen.

[Guinastasia]

I had evolution beaten into me by nuns (not really, they were the BPOE) so I don't think the Church will step off the cliff of sanity. If that happened there are Christian offshoots of Catholicism that are so close in practice to the Church (without the guilt, pomp, or circumstance) that it would be nothing more than a quick name change on the building.

How do you say "bite me" in Latin.


First, what is "BPOE?"


Second, there's always the church my dad's cousin started: Christ Hope Ecumenical Catholic Church (http://www.christhope.com/). Explanation-he's a priest who was excommunicated because he wouldn't shut up or retract his approval for married and/or women clergy. So he started his own church.

Bite me in Latin? I THINK it's "endo ego." Don't ask me how I know this.

[SteveG1]

I had believed that, in Catholicism, the Pope is God's representative on Earth. Wouldn't believing that any position he could come forward with could possibly be false indicate that you already have lost your faith in the Catholic doctrine?

*not trying to be argumentative mind. I am an atheist*
That raises an interesting thought. If the Pope does go all the way and denounces evolution, then he is denouncing his own church (which teaches evolution in their schools) and he also denounces previous Popes who were OK with it. So then if it happens, which Pope's words are the "infallible" ones? Not that it matters, the only time anything is "completely infallible with crunchy goodness and extra sparklies" is when it is spoken ex cathdera. If one pope says a thing, and a following pope says the other, one of them has to be false. Or, we can just think for ourselves and sidestep all the rigamarole.

[Squink]

First, what is "BPOE?"
The Benevolent & Protective Order of the Elks (http://www.texaselks.org/History/history_of_the_elks.htm)

[Skammer]

Oh, for Pete's sake, everyone take a breath. This is not a change, this is a clarification. Everyone repeat after me: The Roman Catholic Church is not repudiating evolution.. They are only re-asserting that evolution is a product of divine design and not of random chance. There is nothing anti-scientific or luddite about that.

Sheesh!

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Regardless of whether the Church changes its policy (which I doubt it will), the cardinal who wrote that article is a moron. It's fine to say that you believe that God is behind things as a matter of faith, but it's just a flat out lie (or an expression of sheer ignorance) to say that the universe can't exist without ID (all the evidence suggests that it does) or that there's any evidence for it, much less "overwhelming" evidence, and it's also completely dishonest and even malicious to say that science is trying to "avoid" this non-existence evidence.

Stating a tenet of faith is one thing, stating it as fact, and then trying to smear honest scientists as being somehow unscrupulous or to villify scientific inquiry is beyond the pale.

[Magiver]

First, what is "BPOE?"


Second, there's always the church my dad's cousin started: Christ Hope Ecumenical Catholic Church (http://www.christhope.com/). Explanation-he's a priest who was excommunicated because he wouldn't shut up or retract his approval for married and/or women clergy. So he started his own church.

Bite me in Latin? I THINK it's "endo ego." Don't ask me how I know this.

B.P.O.E "Best People on Earth". It’s an Elks thing that was universally recognized years ago. You can Google it for reference.

Apparently the icon is too old to use anymore. Doesn’t work if people don’t get it. Not that I wasn’t already feeling old.

I’m also of the opinion that this isn’t going to happen in even the slightest instance except to acknowledge that God might have had something to do with getting the ball rolling (by creating the universe). This would not be a departure from what I was taught.

[rfgdxm]

Oh, for Pete's sake, everyone take a breath. This is not a change, this is a clarification. Everyone repeat after me: The Roman Catholic Church is not repudiating evolution.. They are only re-asserting that evolution is a product of divine design and not of random chance. There is nothing anti-scientific or luddite about that.

Sheesh!
This is my assumption to. Although honestly, I don't know all the ins and outs of Roman Catholicism. I was baptised a Roman Catholic, but lapsed in the faith a quarter century ago. However, a few months ago when talking to a devout Catholic this would be enough to go to the local RCC and speak with a priest. From what I was told, unless I was ever formally excommunicated (I wasn't), the church would still recognize me as a member. As such, I could discuss my belief in evolution with the local priest. One of these days I perhaps should. I've yet to see at the local RCC on the sign outside "sinners, go away!"

[rfgdxm]

Regardless of whether the Church changes its policy (which I doubt it will), the cardinal who wrote that article is a moron. It's fine to say that you believe that God is behind things as a matter of faith, but it's just a flat out lie (or an expression of sheer ignorance) to say that the universe can't exist without ID (all the evidence suggests that it does) or that there's any evidence for it, much less "overwhelming" evidence, and it's also completely dishonest and even malicious to say that science is trying to "avoid" this non-existence evidence.

Stating a tenet of faith is one thing, stating it as fact, and then trying to smear honest scientists as being somehow unscrupulous or to villify scientific inquiry is beyond the pale.
Is this a RCC belief? I always thought this wasn't a major RCC point. "Jesus died for our sins, and was the Son of God" was. But evolution was just a minor detail.

[Evil Captor]

Even IF the RCC were in the mood to repudiate evolutionary theory, and I agree the evidence is hardly conclusive ... indicative, at best ... if the Church moved at the same pace as they do on getting sane about birth control and the position of women in the Church, we're not in any great danger of seeing changes for at least a couple hundred years.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Is this a RCC belief? I always thought this wasn't a major RCC point. "Jesus died for our sins, and was the Son of God" was. But evolution was just a minor detail.
It isn't an RCC position, but it's apparently this cardinal's position and he is the only person I was commenting on.

[doreen]

Is this a RCC belief? I always thought this wasn't a major RCC point. "Jesus died for our sins, and was the Son of God" was. But evolution was just a minor detail.

Evolution is a minor detail. The belief that God created the universe is amajor point.

[doreen]

Regardless of whether the Church changes its policy (which I doubt it will), the cardinal who wrote that article is a moron. It's fine to say that you believe that God is behind things as a matter of faith, but it's just a flat out lie (or an expression of sheer ignorance) to say that the universe can't exist without ID (all the evidence suggests that it does) or that there's any evidence for it, much less "overwhelming" evidence, and it's also completely dishonest and even malicious to say that science is trying to "avoid" this non-existence evidence.


What is considered "evidence" in one field may not be considered evidence in another. Scientific evidence may not be admissible in court, and what is admissible in court may have no scientific basis. The same does for faith and science. Someone on this board once told a story in which a priest held up a baby and said " This is proof that God loves us- he sends us babies". Wouldn't be considered proof by a scientist at all- but it is by at least some standards of faith. It is just as wrong to hold faith to the standards of science as it is to hold science to the standards of faith.They are almost mutually exclusive- if I believe something because scientific evidence has persuaded me that it is true, there is no faith involved in my belief, and if I believe something as a matter of faith, it is going to take more than a lack of scientific evidence to change my belief.

[Loopydude]

No matter the merits (or lack thereof) of this particular cleric's argument, an assertion that Neo-Darwinian Evolution (or the current Standard Model of Cosmology (aka inflationary Big Bang), or any other scientific theory) must not be understood to contradict a theistic philosphy of teleology seems a rather blindingly obvious logical extension of a theistic religious framework of belief. If it were not stated explicitly, I would have assumed inevitably that the Catholic Church's only possible official position on evolution is of the "guided" sort, which is to say it's some variant of "Intelligent Design". I imagine honest and astute Catholic theologians will scoff at the sort of tripe produced by the likes of Behe and Dembski, whilst still asserting that the appearance of absense of design, albeit mysterious, is simply no reason to lose faith in Christ or God's ultimate and purposeful role in every aspect of the Cosmos. There are enough other confounding mysteries in Christian faith, after all; and there's nothing especially troublesome about this one, I suppose, unless some members of the flock get as distracted by it as their ancestral brethren did when contemplating some of the other mysteries that have been hashed out in centuries past.

[rfgdxm]

Evolution is a minor detail. The belief that God created the universe is amajor point.
That was my impression. You don't see Roman Catholics in the US getting into a big huff over the fact that evolution is taught in public schools. Although this may have something to do with Roman Catholics not wanting the Protestant majority in the US calling the shots over public school curricula. The RCC attitude, at least in the US, seems to be that if I have any questions about God and the creation of the universe, I should haul my ass to the local RCC and speak with a priest. They don't care that much about what scientists or the government says. God works in mysterious ways, and could have possibly created a universe where evolution occurs. What is important is following the Ten Commandments, and the teachings of Jesus. Theories of evolution are just "small stuff", and I'd miss the point of the faith if I worried a lot about them.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

What is considered "evidence" in one field may not be considered evidence in another. Scientific evidence may not be admissible in court, and what is admissible in court may have no scientific basis. The same does for faith and science. Someone on this board once told a story in which a priest held up a baby and said " This is proof that God loves us- he sends us babies". Wouldn't be considered proof by a scientist at all- but it is by at least some standards of faith. It is just as wrong to hold faith to the standards of science as it is to hold science to the standards of faith.They are almost mutually exclusive- if I believe something because scientific evidence has persuaded me that it is true, there is no faith involved in my belief, and if I believe something as a matter of faith, it is going to take more than a lack of scientific evidence to change my belief.
The imbecile quoted in the OP specicifically said that evidence for "purpose and design" is found in "modern science." That is an objectively false statement. It's a lie, not a difference of opinion. There is not, and never has been, a single shred of scientific evidence for ID whatsoever. The cardinal also goes on to say that scientific theories which do not acknowledge ID are "avoiding" scientific evidence for ID (they are not...there IS no such evidence) and that such theories are "not scientific." That's another statement which has nothing to do with a different kind of "evidence," it's simply an objective falsehood and a malicious one at that.

Stating a tenet of faith is one thing. Villifying science and making false statements about it is another.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

By the way, as long as it's relevant, all scientific evidence is completely admissable in court. You're wrong about that.

[rfgdxm]

No matter the merits (or lack thereof) of this particular cleric's argument, an assertion that Neo-Darwinian Evolution (or the current Standard Model of Cosmology (aka inflationary Big Bang), or any other scientific theory) must not be understood to contradict a theistic philosphy of teleology seems a rather blindingly obvious logical extension of a theistic religious framework of belief. If it were not stated explicitly, I would have assumed inevitably that the Catholic Church's only possible official position on evolution is of the "guided" sort, which is to say it's some variant of "Intelligent Design". I imagine honest and astute Catholic theologians will scoff at the sort of tripe produced by the likes of Behe and Dembski, whilst still asserting that the appearance of absense of design, albeit mysterious, is simply no reason to lose faith in Christ or God's ultimate and purposeful role in every aspect of the Cosmos. There are enough other confounding mysteries in Christian faith, after all; and there's nothing especially troublesome about this one, I suppose, unless some members of the flock get as distracted by it as their ancestral brethren did when contemplating some of the other mysteries that have been hashed out in centuries past.
Darwin wasn't an atheist. He just offered a theory of how god's creation worked. God could have created a universe where evolution was part of His "Intelligent Design".

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Darwin didn't start off as an atheist but he gradually became more and more agnostic as he did his research.

[rfgdxm]

By the way, as long as it's relevant, all scientific evidence is completely admissable in court. You're wrong about that.
Yep. And God could have created the universe via a "Big Bang".

[rfgdxm]

Darwin didn't start off as an atheist but he gradually became more and more agnostic as he did his research.
Understandable. Science by its nature is agnostic. It operates based on empirical evidence. But the existence of God, or His non-existence, is beyond science. We may be just hairless apes trying to figure out how God did it.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Yep. And God could have created the universe via a "Big Bang".
Yep. And that's all the Church needs to say. In fact, I believe the essential position on evolution is only that while evolutionary theory does not conflict with Catholic doctrine, the Church still maintains that God created the universe and the human soul. As long as the Church does not try to claim that there is scientific evidence for those things (or that scientists are "avoiding" such evidence), then there is nothing extraordinary or worrisome or anti-scientific in the postion.

[silenus]

How do you say "bite me" in Latin?

Morde me. (MORE day may)

:D

[tomndebb]

Here is the 1909 entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding Catholics and Evolution (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm). The science noted in the article is accurate as of its date.

Note that it distinguishes between the mechanical/physical events and the philosophical/theological discussions. I suspect that Schönborn is taking works such as those propounded by Dawkins and sloppily using their philosophical musings to (mis)label Neo-Darwinism. I think Schönborn should shut up until he takes a class to distinguish the areas he is discussing. (Alternatively, Neo-Darwinism, as a term, may have more of a philosophical meaning in Europe or in German that has led to confusion when the term is used in American English. I do not believe this is true--but one may hope.)

In any event, I really doubt that Schönborn is going to cause the church to overturn 96 years (128 years if we go back to the paper cited in the CE article) of careful pronouncements that distinguish between phytsical and philosophical meanings without a serious fight by genuine scientists. (Wait til the Jebbies get hold of him.)

- - -

Of course, he has now given me new ammunition when some twit cries "the pope said it!" According to Schönborn, even the pope can make pronouncements that are "vague and unimportant."

[Spavined Gelding]

Evolution, Creation, Design, Big Bang, Spear Dipped in the Sea, what have you. I am contentiously astounded by the effrontery of people who claim to have sought the mind of God and not only have found out what the Almighty thinks but also set themselves up as His exclusive spokesman on the matter. This, it seems to me is blasphemy of the most obvious and virulent sort.

Strangely enough, when ever some people seek to have the Lord God Almighty collaborate there particular view of any given question the Lord of Hosts comes right back on the dedicated line and pronounces that they are, yet again, right and that God is in complete agreement with them. It must be comforting to be so tight with God.

[doreen]

The imbecile quoted in the OP specicifically said that evidence for "purpose and design" is found in "modern science." That is an objectively false statement. It's a lie, not a difference of opinion. There is not, and never has been, a single shred of scientific evidence for ID whatsoever. The cardinal also goes on to say that scientific theories which do not acknowledge ID are "avoiding" scientific evidence for ID (they are not...there IS no such evidence) and that such theories are "not scientific." That's another statement which has nothing to do with a different kind of "evidence," it's simply an objective falsehood and a malicious one at that.

Stating a tenet of faith is one thing. Villifying science and making false statements about it is another.

You and I apparently don't understand "overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science". You take that phrase to mean "overwhelming scientific evidence", while I take it to mean something closer to "only God can make a tree" . Whether it's an objective and malicious falsehood depends on which way it was meant.

[rayh]

You can try this link :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/vaticanscientists.shtml
to see how the Cathlic Church handles scientific matters

[Guinastasia]

In any event, I really doubt that Schönborn is going to cause the church to overturn 96 years (128 years if we go back to the paper cited in the CE article) of careful pronouncements that distinguish between phytsical and philosophical meanings without a serious fight by genuine scientists. (Wait til the Jebbies get hold of him.)




Jebbies? Are you talking about the Jesuits?

[Evil Captor]

Darwin didn't start off as an atheist but he gradually became more and more agnostic as he did his research.

Darwin not only wasn't an atheist, he was a pastor, a common position for gentlemen of his standing at that time. Many such pastors were very enthusiastic naturalists, who took great delight in cataloguing the incredible variety of unique adaptations that plants and animals had made to their circumstances, because at the time such adaptations were considered to be living proof of the divine power of God. The argument being that only a just and merciful god would have made the Brazlilian flaming titmouse with a proboscis that is EXACTLY the right length to extract the nector of the Brazilian creeping Orinoco vine's flowers, which are its only food. They were in essence cataloguing instance after instance of the "Paley's watch" argument, unaware that in a very short time Darwin would come up with a natural mechanism whereby such adaptations could evolve, and suddenly agnostics would be using those very same adaptations as evidence against a Creator of all things.

Sometimes, life is sweet. Must have been very sweet indeed for a thinking man, in those days.

[lekatt]

The imbecile quoted in the OP specicifically said that evidence for "purpose and design" is found in "modern science." That is an objectively false statement. It's a lie, not a difference of opinion. There is not, and never has been, a single shred of scientific evidence for ID whatsoever. The cardinal also goes on to say that scientific theories which do not acknowledge ID are "avoiding" scientific evidence for ID (they are not...there IS no such evidence) and that such theories are "not scientific." That's another statement which has nothing to do with a different kind of "evidence," it's simply an objective falsehood and a malicious one at that.

Stating a tenet of faith is one thing. Villifying science and making false statements about it is another.

In any moment there are billions of cosmic, and physical actions taking place. If all these actions were accidental and/or random nothing could live anywhere. We rely on Order (check meaning in Dict.) to keep our environment reasonable to live in. No sane person will point to the accidental randomness of the orbits of the planets, the reliability of gravity and many other "physical laws" of the Universe. And you still say there is no evidence of Intelligent Design? Incredible.

[MEBuckner]

Darwin not only wasn't an atheist, he was a pastor, a common position for gentlemen of his standing at that time.
Darwin studied for the ministry when young but was never a pastor. By his own account, he was an orthodox Anglican Christian as a young man, but gradually lost his belief in the Christian religion and eventually wound up a self-described Agnostic who clearly disbelieved in orthodox Christian dogma and professed no knowledge one way or the other about the existence of a Creator.

[Colibri]

In any moment there are billions of cosmic, and physical actions taking place. If all these actions were accidental and/or random nothing could live anywhere. We rely on Order (check meaning in Dict.) to keep our environment reasonable to live in. No sane person will point to the accidental randomness of the orbits of the planets, the reliability of gravity and many other "physical laws" of the Universe. And you still say there is no evidence of Intelligent Design? Incredible.

This paragraph makes no logical sense whatsoever.

[tomndebb]

Jebbies? Are you talking about the Jesuits?But, of course!

[GIGObuster]

Jebbies? Are you talking about the Jesuits?

I thought he was talking about the followers of Saint Jeb Bush, patron saint of the undead. :p <---- directed at the followers of Jeb

[JRDelirious]

I suspect that Schönborn is taking works such as those propounded by Dawkins and sloppily using their philosophical musings to (mis)label Neo-Darwinism. I think Schönborn should shut up until he takes a class to distinguish the areas he is discussing. (Alternatively, Neo-Darwinism, as a term, may have more of a philosophical meaning in Europe or in German that has led to confusion when the term is used in American English. I do not believe this is true--but one may hope.) Good point: American and European intellectual discourse sometimes seem to be losing a common language of concepts. I also got a strong feeling while trying to wrap my mind around the article, that what Schönborn calls "Intelligent Design" is not really what American Creationists mean by "Intelligent Design". He's referring to the well-established doctrine that there is a Grand Divine Plan and everything going on within the Universe is part of it, rather than just contingent.

What I got from Schönborn seems to be some sort of fear that because strict scientific research rightly operates regarding divine intervention as something innecessary, somehow the civilians out there will think that "science has concluded God is innecessary". Not only does it sound unbecomingly insecure, but it needlessly makes the Church look wishy-washy AND gives aid and comfort to the Creationists.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

You and I apparently don't understand "overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science". You take that phrase to mean "overwhelming scientific evidence", while I take it to mean something closer to "only God can make a tree" . Whether it's an objective and malicious falsehood depends on which way it was meant.
What do you think "found in modern science" means? There is only one meaning for SCIENTIFIC evidence. "God can make a tree" is not evidence "found in modern science." In fact, it's not evidence at all. Evidence is something tangible or observable which can support an assertion. "Only God can make a tree" is simply a bare assertion with no support at all. It's not evidence for a conclusion, it IS a conclusion...and a rather vacant one at that.

As to my accusation of "malicious" intent-- the cardinal basically accused scientists of being dishonest, and "unscientific" and of "avoiding" scientific evidence. When he says they come up with theories in order to "avoid overwhelming evidence found in modern science," that's a lie, it's not a difference of opinion it's FALSE. One more time there is [b]no evidence whatsoever for ID found in modern science.[/i] Not "overwhelming" evidence, not some evidence, not a little bit of evidence. There is [i]none. nothing. zero. There is nothing to "avoid."

[ambushed]

I agree with this. Science, as such, has no business saying that the universe was not designed any more than it has saying the universe was designed.


However, science has every business to state unequivocally that if life was designed, it was designed by a moron who didn't care how much suffering it caused. Certainly the ostensible "designer", if it exists, is utterly unworthy of worship!

[doreen]

What do you think "found in modern science" means? There is only one meaning for SCIENTIFIC evidence. "God can make a tree" is not evidence "found in modern science." In fact, it's not evidence at all. Evidence is something tangible or observable which can support an assertion. "Only God can make a tree" is simply a bare assertion with no support at all. It's not evidence for a conclusion, it IS a conclusion...and a rather vacant one at that. There is only one meaning for "scientific evidence". But that's not the phrase we're talking about. He used a phrase that was IMO, deliberately not "scientific evidence". In fact, I couldn't find that phrase in the entire article . I did find "reason" and "intellect" used a few times. And this is what I think he means when he speaks of evidence found in science
The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason.
You don't not consider this evidence that there is a God, I don't and it's certainly not "scientific evidence", but the Catholic church considers it evidence, in much the same way they conclude that the beauty of a tree is evidence that God made it.

[Liberal]

What do you think "found in modern science" means? There is only one meaning for SCIENTIFIC evidence. "God can make a tree" is not evidence "found in modern science." In fact, it's not evidence at all. Evidence is something tangible or observable which can support an assertion. "Only God can make a tree" is simply a bare assertion with no support at all. It's not evidence for a conclusion, it IS a conclusion...and a rather vacant one at that.

As to my accusation of "malicious" intent-- the cardinal basically accused scientists of being dishonest, and "unscientific" and of "avoiding" scientific evidence. When he says they come up with theories in order to "avoid overwhelming evidence found in modern science," that's a lie, it's not a difference of opinion it's FALSE. One more time there is [b]no evidence whatsoever for ID found in modern science.[/i] Not "overwhelming" evidence, not some evidence, not a little bit of evidence. There is [i]none. nothing. zero. There is nothing to "avoid."For science, evidence should be something that is falsifiable.

[Bricker]

However, science has every business to state unequivocally that if life was designed, it was designed by a moron who didn't care how much suffering it caused. Certainly the ostensible "designer", if it exists, is utterly unworthy of worship!

This, in your view, is an analysis worhty of science, eh?

[lekatt]

This paragraph makes no logical sense whatsoever.

What about it that you didn't understand?

[Scott Plaid]

This, in your view, is an analysis worhty of science, eh?I don't understand what you are saying. Should all people who feel science needs to be defended do so in a passionless way? If not, how would you prefer that they defend the subject?

[lekatt]

However, science has every business to state unequivocally that if life was designed, it was designed by a moron who didn't care how much suffering it caused. Certainly the ostensible "designer", if it exists, is utterly unworthy of worship!


Since you are not working with the knowledge God has, why do you think you know more than He. What we have here is the student trying to tell the teacher how to run the class. Just doesn't work that way. Perhaps when we gain knowledge and wisdom we will understand the why's.

[tomndebb]

I don't understand what you are saying. Should all people who feel science needs to be defended do so in a passionless way? If not, how would you prefer that they defend the subject?Complete non sequitur. Bricker questioned whether the moral judgments of ambushed's post were a proper field of inquiry for science. As a great many defenders of science and the scientific method have noted, repeatedly, on this board, science does not legitimately address morality.

Bricker made no attack upon science.
Bricker made no attack upon the defense of science (which is not under direct attack in this thread).

Your question regarding the passion of defenders of science is irrelevant to that exchange.

[Scott Plaid]

Your question regarding the passion of defenders of science is irrelevant to that exchange.:shrug: Well, like I said, I didn't understand what he was trying to say.

[tomndebb]

A little more of that honesty would take you far on this board. ;)

[rayh]

For science, evidence should be something that is falsifiable.

I may be nit-picking here, but evidence is not falsifiable, theories and conjectures are.

[Evil Captor]

Darwin studied for the ministry when young but was never a pastor. By his own account, he was an orthodox Anglican Christian as a young man, but gradually lost his belief in the Christian religion and eventually wound up a self-described Agnostic who clearly disbelieved in orthodox Christian dogma and professed no knowledge one way or the other about the existence of a Creator.

It could well be that he studied to be a pastor but never became one. And it's fair to say he was something like an agnostic when he grew old. My point was that he started out well within the tradition of religious types who at that time considered every subtle detail of the natural world they discovered to be further evidence of divine providence.

[smiling bandit]

This is the most pointlessly over-reacting thread I have personally ever seen.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

What do you think "found in modern science" means? There is only one meaning for SCIENTIFIC evidence. "God can make a tree" is not evidence "found in modern science." In fact, it's not evidence at all. Evidence is something tangible or observable which can support an assertion. "Only God can make a tree" is simply a bare assertion with no support at all. It's not evidence for a conclusion, it IS a conclusion...and a rather vacant one at that. There is only one meaning for "scientific evidence". But that's not the phrase we're talking about. He used a phrase that was IMO, deliberately not "scientific evidence". In fact, I couldn't find that phrase in the entire article . I did find "reason" and "intellect" used a few times. And this is what I think he means when he speaks of evidence found in science

You don't not consider this evidence that there is a God, I don't and it's certainly not "scientific evidence", but the Catholic church considers it evidence, in much the same way they conclude that the beauty of a tree is evidence that God made it.
It's also not "evidence found in science." Science is a method. Evidence "found in science" means evidence that is found by scientific method.

There is no evidence for ID found in science. There is no evidence for ID found in science. There is no evidence for ID found in science. There is no evidence for ID found in science. There is no evidence for ID found in science.

There is no other kind of evidence for it either, when you get right down to it.

You also ignored the part about how the cardinal smeared scoientists by calling them "unscientific" and accusing them of "avoiding overwhelming evidence" which does not exist. He's a liar. That's all there is to it.

For science, evidence should be something that is falsifiable.
Evidence is how you falsify or confirm a hypothesis or theory. It isn't falsifiable in itself.

ID doesn't even rise to the level of a scientific hypothesis because it proposes nothing falsifiable by observable evidence.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

By the way, this statement:
The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason.
Is simply an opinion. It is not "evidence" for anything, it's just a baseless conclusion, completely undemonstrated in the history of science.

[Genghis Bob]

What about it that you didn't understand?

This sentence doesn't seem to go anywhere in the context of the paragraph:

No sane person will point to the accidental randomness of the orbits of the planets, the reliability of gravity and many other "physical laws" of the Universe.

[John Mace]

What about it that you didn't understand?

He didn't say he didn't understand it, he said it made no logical sense.

Basically, you have said: I can't understand the complexity of the universe, therefore a supernatural being must have created it.

Your conclusion does not follow logically from the premise. It's what we call a non sequitur.

[Steve MB]

By the way, as long as it's relevant, all scientific evidence is completely admissable in court.
Nonsense. For example, if you are accused of killing somebody and a cop comes barging into your house to collect forensic samples without authorization, the results will be perfectly relevant, quite scientific, and utterly inadmissible in court.

[Darwin's Finch]

So where does that leave us? The Church agrees that evolution occurs, but disagrees with Darwin and his intellectual progeny that evolution occurs randomly. Because, you see, if it's all random, what does that tell us about the nature of a divine being?

Too bad for the Church, then, that Darwin and his intellectual progeny don't (or didn't, as the case may be...or have been...) put forth the notion that evolution -- or, more correctly, the primary mechanism driving evolution -- occurs randomly. Natural selection is a very much non-random explanation for the diversity (and possibly even the very presence) of life.

If anyone is arguing against evolution being a random, unguided process, they are arguing against strawmen.

[GIGObuster]

He didn't say he didn't understand it, he said it made no logical sense.

Basically, you have said: I can't understand the complexity of the universe, therefore a supernatural being must have created it.

Your conclusion does not follow logically from the premise. It's what we call a non sequitur.
Just to show the lekatts out there how limiting is even that failure to understand: Folks, it may be worse than that, if the multi-universe theories are correct, we may be the forgotten biological high school project of a junior God in the 11th dimensional universe, pray that the father of that god does not find us and toss us in the trash.


Or eat us, I have to say that in my mind, it popped up an old cartoon that had a girl opening a refrigerator and screaming: “Oh no! Someone ate my biology experiment!” (Father in couch then looks up worried..)

[Evil Captor]

This is the most pointlessly over-reacting thread I have personally ever seen.

What do you mean by THAT!!!???!!!???!!!

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Nonsense. For example, if you are accused of killing somebody and a cop comes barging into your house to collect forensic samples without authorization, the results will be perfectly relevant, quite scientific, and utterly inadmissible in court.
But that's completely beside the point. It wouldn't be inadmissable because it wasn't probative, just because it was improperly attained. I was disputing the erroneous assertion that "not all scientific evidence is admissable in court" which was stated with the implication that not all scientific evidence is empirically valid.

[lekatt]

He didn't say he didn't understand it, he said it made no logical sense.

Basically, you have said: I can't understand the complexity of the universe, therefore a supernatural being must have created it.

Your conclusion does not follow logically from the premise. It's what we call a non sequitur.

Really don't care what you call it. The logic is, order comes from intelligence. Simple, easy to understand for everyone. Over ninety percent of the population of the world understand it. Look around, we live in a world of order. We can count on the sun being where it's supposed to be all the time. Intelligent Design is everywhere. This is not an accidental random world. Sometimes the hardest things to see and understand are those directly in front of us.

[tomndebb]

The logic is, order comes from intelligence. Simple, easy to understand for everyone. The world is flat. Simple, easy to understand for everyone.


Sometimes the hardest things to see and understand are those directly in front of us.Which is why you seem to persist in your belief--because you cannot envision the world in any other way.

This does not make it true, it indicates that your vision is limited.

[John Mace]

Really don't care what you call it. The logic is, order comes from intelligence.

Nope. For example, a diamond is a crystal-- an ordered arrangement of atoms, carbon in this case. All it takes is pressure to create that order. False premise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise).

Simple, easy to understand for everyone. Over ninety percent of the population of the world understand it.

Argumentum ad populum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_belief).

Look around, we live in a world of order. We can count on the sun being where it's supposed to be all the time.

That is not only circular reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question) in the short term (it's where it is because it's supposed to be there), but long term it's simply wrong. At some point the sun will cease to exist-- ie, another false premise.

[John Mace]

lekatt:

I want to make something clear: I'm not trying to belittle your beliefs. I know that you advocate a certain type of mysticism and there's nothing wrong with that, per se. Some of our best art has been inspired by mysticism. But... mysticism is not a scientific system of beliefs, or something that can be proven thru logic. That's where you make your mistake. Mysticism, by it's very nature, is not logical or empirical. If it were, it would no longer be mysticism, but science.

Be happy with your mysticsm and how it informss your views on metaphysical issues. But you're simply not going to be able to use logic and/or empirical evidence to convince others of the validity of that mysticism.

[JRDelirious]

Too bad for the Church, then, that Darwin and his intellectual progeny don't (or didn't, as the case may be...or have been...) put forth the notion that evolution -- or, more correctly, the primary mechanism driving evolution -- occurs randomly. Natural selection is a very much non-random explanation for the diversity (and possibly even the very presence) of life.

If anyone is arguing against evolution being a random, unguided process, they are arguing against strawmen.


Which is why tom and I are wondering if this isn't some gross lost-in-conceptual-translation brainfart on Schönborn's part, wherein he keeps using terms that do not really mean what he thinks they mean. Because clerics of his rank in the RCC normally at least have their debating rhetorics down cold.

BTW, ambushed's statement is basically the mirror-image of Schönborn's, resting on the same fallacy that given enough data, science should "prove" something moral about the divine. The only thing it can say about the divine is that if it's there, it has done such a splendid job of disguising itself as naturalistic phenomena that we may confidently continue to calculate things on that basis.

[lekatt]

lekatt:

I want to make something clear: I'm not trying to belittle your beliefs. I know that you advocate a certain type of mysticism and there's nothing wrong with that, per se. Some of our best art has been inspired by mysticism. But... mysticism is not a scientific system of beliefs, or something that can be proven thru logic. That's where you make your mistake. Mysticism, by it's very nature, is not logical or empirical. If it were, it would no longer be mysticism, but science.

Be happy with your mysticsm and how it informss your views on metaphysical issues. But you're simply not going to be able to use logic and/or empirical evidence to convince others of the validity of that mysticism.

There is nothing mystical about Intelligent Design. It is self-evident. I haven't heard much talk about the Unified Field Theory lately, but at one time it was generally believed by some scientists to be a reality. The reconciliation of the forces of gravity, strong and weak into one force that "governed" the Universe. There is one force that does govern the Universe, that force is God, or any of a hundred other names people have for God. The point is the force is intelligent, somewhat shown by the electron experiment of the two holes in a rudimentary way. Without intelligence there can be no order. I think it would be mystical to assume this beautiful Universe came into being by randomness. What's left to discover is the characteristics of this intelligent force that created and guides our existence. I know we can't read that information out of an ancient book, nor can we measure it by "scientific" doctrine. But it does exist, nothing else can explain the ordered Universe we live in.

I won't bother you any more with my logic. I am very happy with my understanding of this world and I wish you happiness with yours.

[lekatt]

The world is flat. Simple, easy to understand for everyone.


Which is why you seem to persist in your belief--because you cannot envision the world in any other way.

This does not make it true, it indicates that your vision is limited.


Your slipping again Tom, you didn't address the post, only insulted it.

Perhaps you can say how order comes without intelligence, I can't.
Or how science is possible without order.

Ok, I will leave this thread, I feel kinda like I did when I was questioning the preacher about religion.

[tomndebb]

Perhaps you can say how order comes without intelligence, I can't. The fact that you cannot say how order comes without intelligence is simply a failure of imagination, not a barrier to order arising without conscious thought.

[tomndebb]

There is nothing mystical about Intelligent Design. It is self-evident.You are misusing the phrase "Intelligent Design" (which, when capitalized means a particular scientifically bankrupt attempt to insert Christian beliefs into non-denominational science classes, not the theistic evolution that you actually intend to address.) This sort of mendacious or ignorant claim, not your personally held beliefs, is why your posts are met with such derision.

[John Mace]

Without intelligence there can be no order.

This is the fundamental assumption you are making, and it is simply wrong. Why does order require intelligence? First of all, order is a human construct. But even if we ignore that, even within that construct, there are many examples of order coming into being w/o intelligence. I already gave you one (diamonds). On what scientific evidence do you base this claim?

[Loopydude]

You are misusing the phrase "Intelligent Design" (which, when capitalized means a particular scientifically bankrupt attempt to insert Christian beliefs into non-denominational science classes, not the theistic evolution that you actually intend to address.)

I did this too, earlier on, with my poor choice of capitalization. "Theistic evolution" does seem to be a better term for what I was getting at, for the purposes of convention. If it's not too much of a hijack, I'm curious though: This "theistic evolution", which is apparrently the belief that God laid down the natural laws in the Beginning, and things unflold, er...naturally thenceforth, seems an awful lot like deism, to me, without further asserting that there is teleology* in this scheme, and that God does, at least occasionally, intervene in a manner that could legitimately be called "supernatural" to help The Plan along. Is this a correct characterizing "theistic evolution"?

*It seems inevitable that teleological concepts, in what I understand to be a Christian philosophical framework, involve asserting the existence of an "intelligent designer" who made the world for a purpose, and acts for the fulfilment of that purpose, ultimately involving the return of Christ at the eschaton.

[lekatt]

This is the fundamental assumption you are making, and it is simply wrong. Why does order require intelligence? First of all, order is a human construct. But even if we ignore that, even within that construct, there are many examples of order coming into being w/o intelligence. I already gave you one (diamonds). On what scientific evidence do you base this claim?

Necessary to answer this one.

Yes, order is a human construct, and humans are intelligent beings. We build cities with transportation systems to make life as ordered as possible. Streets are laid out and numbered in order. Here order follows intelligence.

We have no scientific evidence that diamond construction is done randomly yets produces an ordered stone. We can have randomness or we can have order. Any bit of order in randomness changes randomness to order.

You can take a handfull of dice and roll them out, you may find that all the die show the same number and say "I have created order out of randomness." But the next roll will see your order vanish. Let's say life began on a fortuitious roll of the dice, fine, next roll kills it off. This universe is dynamic and ongoing. It would be impossible to maintain this ordered universe in a state of randomness.

Even if you get passed the random/order you have not shown where intelligence comes into the picture and how and why. The intelligent force that created us and the Universe imparted intelligence to us. We are created in the likeness, etc.
The world didn't need a scientific explanation for its being. A very good spiritual one was already in place. Yeah, I know, religion has twisted and misused the logic to advance whatever cause the folks wanted.

Logic says order comes from intelligence not randomness.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I did this too, earlier on, with my poor choice of capitalization. "Theistic evolution" does seem to be a better term for what I was getting at, for the purposes of convention. If it's not too much of a hijack, I'm curious though: This "theistic evolution", which is apparrently the belief that God laid down the natural laws in the Beginning, and things unflold, er...naturally thenceforth, seems an awful lot like deism, to me, without further asserting that there is teleology* in this scheme, and that God does, at least occasionally, intervene in a manner that could legitimately be called "supernatural" to help The Plan along. Is this a correct characterizing "theistic evolution"?

*It seems inevitable that teleological concepts, in what I understand to be a Christian philosophical framework, involve asserting the existence of an "intelligent designer" who made the world for a purpose, and acts for the fulfilment of that purpose, ultimately involving the return of Christ at the eschaton.
Theistic Evolution does not necessarily preclude some subtle intervention in biological evolution from time to time, it just doesn't insist on it. It also doesn't preclude divine intervention in other ways, in fact, some models (such as the Catholic one) do insist that God specially created the human soul, that God has miraculously intervened in human history, that God became incarnate on earth as Christ, etc.

Basically, biological evolution is seen as something akin to the orbits of the planets. The physics were set up according to a divine will and they operate on their own without the need of deliberate intervention all the time. God doesn't have to keep making the sun come up every day and he doesn't have to make beneficial mutations become dominant over time.

[Loopydude]

Hmm. OK, thanks. I guess I might be also remiss in assuming a deist (or "deist evolutionist", perhaps?) is without some sort of teleological belief. I suppose if the Great Watchmaker put it together and wound it up, there could be some purpose in the deist god's disign, if only to be entertained by the unfolding of events post creation.

I don't think I will ever get a very good handle on theological and philosphical taxa, and their true relation to and distinctions from one another.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

There can still be teleology in Deism. In fact, I think it's more or less assumed that the Deistic creator had some purpose in "winding the watch." The key component of Deism is the belief that the deity does not intervene in the universe once it's going, but that doesn't mean that where it's going couldn't have been planned.

I think that Deism was pretty much conceived because during the enlightment there didn't seem to be any other answer to the First cause argument. So a Deistic creator answered that question without necessarily imposing any temporal supernatural intervention onto the material universe. Those who were Deists in the 18th century would probably be agnostics or atheists today.

[Icerigger]

Some good discussion of this topic can be found at Panda's Thumb.


http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/07/victim_of_the_w.html#c37497

[tnetennba]

For science, evidence should be something that is falsifiable.

We've been over this. Evolution is falsifiable by showing a species not adapting over time to its environment. Speaking of "evidence" as falsifiable is a bit off the mark, though. It's not the evidence that's got to be falsifiable, it's the claims.

[John Mace]

Necessary to answer this one.

Yes, order is a human construct, and humans are intelligent beings. We build cities with transportation systems to make life as ordered as possible. Streets are laid out and numbered in order. Here order follows intelligence.

We have no scientific evidence that diamond construction is done randomly yets produces an ordered stone. We can have randomness or we can have order. Any bit of order in randomness changes randomness to order.

You can take a handfull of dice and roll them out, you may find that all the die show the same number and say "I have created order out of randomness." But the next roll will see your order vanish. Let's say life began on a fortuitious roll of the dice, fine, next roll kills it off. This universe is dynamic and ongoing. It would be impossible to maintain this ordered universe in a state of randomness.

Even if you get passed the random/order you have not shown where intelligence comes into the picture and how and why. The intelligent force that created us and the Universe imparted intelligence to us. We are created in the likeness, etc.
The world didn't need a scientific explanation for its being. A very good spiritual one was already in place. Yeah, I know, religion has twisted and misused the logic to advance whatever cause the folks wanted.

Logic says order comes from intelligence not randomness.

Honestly, that's just one circular argument. You define order as requiring intelligence. You have not proven it. You simply say that you can't fathom order coming into being without intelligece. But that only means you are lacking some knowledge, not that your conclusion is true.

How did the intelligence that created this order come into being? Did some other previous intelligence create it? How, then, did that intelligence come into being? Your own assertion that order requires intellgence is contradicted by the fact that the intelligence had to have been created by some other intelligence, ad infintum.

[ChockFullOfHeadyGoodness]

Looks like the Discovery Institute were the ones who put the Cardinal up to it (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/09/science/09cardinal.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=0c18381d982e5e77&ex=1278561600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)
The relevant part:
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.

Mark Ryland, a vice president of the institute, said in an interview that he had urged the cardinal to write the essay. Both Mr. Ryland and Cardinal Schönborn said that an essay in May in The Times about the compatibility of religion and evolutionary theory by Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, suggested to them that it was time to clarify the church's position on evolution.

The cardinal's essay was submitted to The Times by a Virginia public relations firm, Creative Response Concepts, which also represents the Discovery Institute


One good point the above article makes:
the cardinal said that his essay had not been approved by the Vatican

[bonzer]

FWIW, here's the Krauss piece (http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/17comm2.html) referred to. I can see why it would piss off the Discovery Institute, but his position seems at least not to contradict what I understood John Paul II's was.

[Mtgman]

You can take a handfull of dice and roll them out, you may find that all the die show the same number and say "I have created order out of randomness." But the next roll will see your order vanish. Let's say life began on a fortuitious roll of the dice, fine, next roll kills it off. This universe is dynamic and ongoing. It would be impossible to maintain this ordered universe in a state of randomness.
...
Logic says order comes from intelligence not randomness.Not quite. This is basically the same arguement which says the second law of thermodynamics means evolution could not have occurred. What is missing is the cosmic vastness and geological timeline. The amount of time between those dice rolls and the number of tables. You're right in that the next roll will kill off whatever order has occurred in this localized area we call Earth and the Solar System. If this roll is a massive meteorite/comet impact or the sun going nova doesn't matter. Still, while the dice are sitting still on our particular table(the solar system) with both numbers matching it certainly appears to be ordered to an observer who can't see beyond that instant in time. It would also seem to stretch belief to see dice in an apparent state of order on the table for someone limited to seeing only that table and not the myriad of other tables in the room with their innumerable pairs of dice in all kinds of various configurations. Broadening the view in space and time brings localized order into perspective as simply a point in the range of possibilities.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Loopydude]

There can still be teleology in Deism. In fact, I think it's more or less assumed that the Deistic creator had some purpose in "winding the watch." The key component of Deism is the belief that the deity does not intervene in the universe once it's going, but that doesn't mean that where it's going couldn't have been planned.

Thanks, DtC, that's very helpful.

I think part of the reason I get so confused trying to keep the sundry metaphysical frameworks straight is because they seem to overlap at times, and worse, become so trivial the more they strive to agree with empirical observation that I wonder why anyone bothers with them.

Take Deism, which appears to be the belief that while there certainly is a Creator who deliberately brought the universe into being, this Creator does not reveal Itself to us except in the natural laws and phenomena of the universe, which we grow to comprehend through the rather materialistic approach of observing it with our senses. Oddly, the Deists of today claim they deduce the existence of this Creator rationally as the only plausible explanation for existence itself, perhaps especially in light of all this wonderful "design" manifest in nature. It's a belief that really seems to be begging the question, if you ask me; and I've never understood why "I don't presently have a testable explanation, and hence have no firm opinion" can't suffice when contemplating the seemingly inexplicably improbable, or the incomprehensibility of the putative lack of "first causes".

As it is, if this Creator is the Designer of nothing more or less than the world revealed to our natural senses (aided when necessary by those physical instruments we use to enhance those senses for the needs of careful observation and measurement), its "purpose" might well be severely limited to the creative act, depending on how orderly and deterministic the universe is allowed to be. Presently we can't say with certainty, but the evidence thus far seems to suggest that the universe is not amenable to determinism, or, at best, allows a severely weakened form of determinism rendered even more feeble by chaos. Indeed, the very laws of nature that govern literally everything about how matter and energy behave in the universe might be purely random parameters that would have been impossible to predict with certainty prior to the epoch of cosmic inflation, which, while occurring a miniscule fraction of a second after The Beginning (or is it "The Recycling"?), was still in the future of the creative event, and hence isolates the future of Creation from it. If we are to pay attention to nature, what purpose could this creator have had except to light the fuse, so to speak, and watch the pieces fly wither they would without foresight?

I simply cannot see the point in being what must be a "deistic evolutionist" if such is even possibly the case. Or, rather, I cannot see the point unless I assert things about the universe that would appeal only to some arbitrary sense of aesthetics, rather than what can possibly be known by the only means of knowing Deists appear to believe are valid. Deists make less sense to me than Creationists, in that respect.

And it seems if theistic evolutionists are not simply to be deists of a sort, they would perhaps need to insist that God must do more than what the laws of universe might allow for a natural being to alter Creation's trajectory from Beginning to a purposeful End. If so, I see no other cause for certainty of teleology in the universe as we thus far know it than arbitrary aesthetics, the sort that requires miracles. It's possibly "ID-lite" at best, and utterly unnecessary in any other respect except as the God of the Ultimate Gap, being all those things that can never be tested, hence can never be refuted, and thus have no relevance to the natural sciences in any legitimate way.

Given this, how is it that theologians concern themselves with these matters at all, and how is it that scientists keep alarming them? I wish the two each had a universe of their own.

[Icerigger]

If this thread is too old to bump up I am sorry, but some new developments have occurred.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1859760,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1

It looks like the Pope is going to endorse Intelligent Design.

[BrainGlutton]

Back to back!
Belly to belly!
Well I don't give a damn
'Cause I done died already!
Back to back!
Belly to belly!
It's the Zombie Jamboree!





IOW, the Mods are going to lock down this zombie thread right quick. The OP may feel free to raise the question again in a new thread that includes a link to this one.

[tomndebb]

Icerigger, I have no problem with you starting a new thread linking to this one. The issue with resurrecting old threads, particularly in GD, is that people will read the thread without noting the dates and pick (or resurrect) old fights with posters who are no longer here to defend their positions.

Feel free to open a new thread with a link to this one, but this one is closed.

[ /Moderating ]