# Has the new Dark Age finally arrived? Catholic Church may condemn Evolution. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 9, 2005, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790 "2005-07-09T23:15:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/81 "2005-07-11T20:02:39Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/82 "2005-07-11T20:36:43Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/83 "2005-07-11T20:43:48Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/84 "2005-07-11T22:53:41Z")
**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. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/85 "2005-07-11T23:19:51Z")
> [@Darwin's Finch](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/86 "2005-07-12T00:49:24Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/87 "2005-07-12T00:58:39Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/88 "2005-07-12T01:28:38Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/89 "2005-07-12T01:33:51Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/90 "2005-07-12T05:41:23Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/91 "2005-07-12T14:31:53Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/92 "2005-07-12T15:30:01Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/93 "2005-07-12T17:35:58Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/94 "2005-07-12T17:58:58Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/95 "2005-07-12T20:05:52Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Icerigger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icerigger/32/432_2.png) [@Icerigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icerigger)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/96 "2005-07-12T23:00:56Z")
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](http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/07/victim_of_the_w.html#c37497) ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/97 "2005-07-12T23:33:45Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/98 "2005-07-12T23:38:30Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > 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_. ---
**Author:** ![ChockFullOfHeadyGoodness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chockfullofheadygoodness/32/511_2.png) [@ChockFullOfHeadyGoodness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChockFullOfHeadyGoodness)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/99 "2005-07-13T00:15:32Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/100 "2005-07-13T00:38:55Z")
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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790.md?page=6)