Comment #37105

Posted by Hiero5ant on July 7, 2005 12:48 PM (e) (s)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the term “neo-paleyist” one coined by Richard Dawkins to describe his own position — or has that term been otherwise appropriated?

Comment #37108

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on July 7, 2005 12:50 PM (e) (s)

I have no idea.  I picked the term up from Ian Musgrave, who uses it to refer to id creationists.

Comment #37110

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on July 7, 2005 12:57 PM (e) (s)

I prefer to call IDists either creationists (Supernatural IDists) or turtlers (Alien IDists).

Comment #37111

Posted by Hiero5ant on July 7, 2005 01:04 PM (e) (s)

I have him using the phrase to describe himself in ‘Universal Darwinism’ (1983), but referring back to a characterization made in Maynard Smith’s ‘The Status of Neo-Darwinism’ (1969).

Comment #37112

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on July 7, 2005 01:06 PM (e) (s)

I chose it to contrast with the Cardinal’s usage of “neo-Darwinism”.

Comment #37117

Posted by Longhorn on July 7, 2005 01:24 PM (e) (s)

According to Christoph Schonborn,

Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense — an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection — is not.

There are some problems with this statement.

First, Schonborn shouldn’t have used the term “neo-Darwinian” in that way.  That is not the way many people use the phrase “neo-Darwinian.”  Most scientists don’t even use the term “neo-Darwinian.”  Most just say “evolution.”  Some use the phrase “synthetic theory.”  Many scientists who do use the term “neo-Darwinian” don’t factor in things like “unguided,” “unplanned,” or any functional equivalent.  They use the word to mean something like the following:

1.  All organisms to live on earth are descended from a common ancestor, and that all organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth.

2.  Genetic and phenotypic variation and what Darwin called “Natural Selection” resulted in the existence of the organisms to live on earth subsequent to the first primordial cells.  Mendel’s ideas on genetic are important. 

3.  No organism has been massively different than its parent(s). 

4.  Evolution took place over millions and millions of years.

Now, Schonborn might be saying that a deity intervened on one or more occasions to cause the existence of some organisms, some parts of some organisms, or to cause some organisms to reproduce.  If that is his hypothesis, he should offer it clearly.  Specifically, he should indicate exactly what event(s) he thinks the deity proximately caused.  That would help us gauge whether his claim is reasonable.  We could get a mental image of the alleged event.  But since he didn’t do that, I’ll work with what I have. 

I’m not sure what Mr. Schonborn means by “an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.”  We don’t yet know the series of events that resulted in the space, matter and time that we associate with the known universe.  We don’t yet know the exact series of events that resulted in the first self-replicating molecules on earth.  But Mr. Schonborn seems to be saying that after the first self-replicating molecules on earth started replicating, a deity and/or extraterrestrial specifically intervened on planet earth on one or more occasions to cause the existence of some organisms, some parts of some organisms, or to cause some organisms to reproduce.  I want more elaboration from Schonborn.  But if that is what he means, he is probably mistaken.  First, clearly a deity or extraterrestrial did not turn dust — poof! — directly into two elephants (one male and one female).  Second, the claim as a whole is probably inaccurate.  Taken together, the following data enables us to determine that he is probably mistaken: 

1.  Self-replicating molecules that were on earth about 3.8 billion years ago evolved (through reproduction) into all the organisms to live on planet earth.  In other words, elephants and bacteria share common ancestors.

2.  There is very good reason to believe that the existence of billions and billions of organisms (and parts of organisms) has been proximately caused by events other than a deity or extraterrestrial specifically intervening and causing the existence of the organism or the part of the organism.  For instance, I was born by my mother.

3.  Given the kind of intervention that Mr. Schonborn probably has in mind, a deity or extraterrestrial probably has not specifically intervened to proximately cause the existence of any part of any organism that has been on earth in the last 500 years.  For instance, a deity or extraterrestrial probably did not intervene to cause me to have the left ear that I have.

4.  A deity is not known to have ever specifically intervened to proximately cause the existence of any organism, or any part of any organism.

5.  No event is known to have been proximately caused by a deity or extraterrestrial.

6.  There is good reason to believe that billions and billions of events have been proximately caused by events other than the specific intervention by a deity or extraterrestrial.  For instance, dead leaves fall from trees.

Schonborn, doesn’t really offer any evidence to show that what he thinks happened actually happened.  He does say this: “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”  I’m not sure what he means by “the overwhelming evidence for design in biology.”  That something is interesting does not enable us to determine that a deity specifically intervened and – poof! – caused the thing to exist.  I’m fairly interesting, and I was born by my mother.

Comment #37118

Posted by Steve on July 7, 2005 01:40 PM (e) (s)

Behe is already crowing.

Comment #37119

Posted by Lurker on July 7, 2005 01:41 PM (e) (s)

Over at IDTF, Behe writes, “Not to put too fine a point on it, he essentially says in so many words that neo-Darwinism is wrong and ID is right. He writes that the conclusion that life is designed is not a matter of faith, but a matter of physical evidence. He says the denial of that evidence is itself ideology; in other words, the denial of the evidence is the faith, the affirmation of the evidence is rational.

I think this is enormously important. (Me Catholic.) I strongly suspect that this op-ed was instigated by Pope Benedict himself. It seems very unlikely that Austrian Cardinal Schönborn would publish an op-ed in the New York Times expounding Catholic understanding of evolution, taking on the Darwinists, and quoting Benedict himself without at least the Pope’s tacit approval, and more likely his active encouragement. I take this to mean that Benedict thinks this issue is very important, and is very interested in setting matters straight.

Having the weight of the Catholic Church publicly behind ID and against Darwinism will make it much harder for the Scopes Trial caricature to stick to ID. Now it isn’t just the proverbial band of yahoos from Tennessee (and a tiny number of confused academics) who don’t get it. Now it’s the largest Christian denomination in the world, one that makes distinctions between the entirely separate issues of the age of the earth, common descent, and Darwinian randomness.”

Behe doesn’t get it.  This problem of “getting evolution” is still largely a Christian, not a scientific, problem.  Nothing the Archbishop writes comes close to making a scientific case against evolution.  Equivocations and misrepresentations constitute a bulk of the editorial.  Not even the Archbishop seems to understand clearly what he would like Christians to understand clearly. 

Let’s take for granted that Behe is right.  The Catholic Church is now fully behind ID.  Is Behe now conceding that scientists can only consider sciences that have the full Blessing of the Church?

Comment #37120

Posted by James Vogel on July 7, 2005 01:43 PM (e) (s)

And since the article is so unclear, it’s very easy for Behe and co. to spin it as a victory, even if (as Reed has gone a good way toward convincing me) it’s not, as such. And it’s a spin that will play very well in the media, given the size, power, and social presence the church has.

Comment #37122

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on July 7, 2005 01:47 PM (e) (s)

In my opinion, I think that the Cardinal is a victim of the Wedge and not a proponent of it.

Comment #37124

Posted by Lurker on July 7, 2005 01:49 PM (e) (s)

What annoys me about this is the rhetorical spin that denying design is an “abdication of human reasoning.”  Excuse me, but what fucking arrogance.  If anyone wants to cite dogmatism in this modern times, he should not have to look further than Behe’s uncritical, easy acquiescence to an Archbishop’s opinion article.  Design is true and neo-darwinism false… because the Church says so!

Comment #37127

Posted by Marco Ferrari on July 7, 2005 02:04 PM (e) (s)

Pardon me if I chime in with a fairly brutal question. It has long been my opinion that theistic evolution is an oxymoron, and the op-ed by the cardinal Schönborn just strengthens my thoughts. As far as I understand his writing, the “thing” lacking in neo-darwinian evolution (or whatever else he choose to call it) is the teleology of the process. Catholic churc thinks that with various tools (why not mutations and natural selection?) a deity deflects the course of blind evolution toward a superior being; guess who this is.
On the other hand, all evolution books and experiments tell us that the process is directionless (nobody knows what the next environment, and therefore selection pressure, will be).
I feel these two positions cannot be held at the same time. How wrong am I?

Comment #37129

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on July 7, 2005 02:20 PM (e) (s)

Although science can tell us that natural causes are sufficient to explain something, it cannot tell us that supernatural causes are not involved.  People may choose to synthesize their faith with scientific findings by believing that something else occured in addition the known natural causes.  It might not be as “parsimonious,” but it is what makes sense to them.

Such people tend to not confuse science and faith.

Comment #37130

Posted by Russell on July 7, 2005 02:25 PM (e) (s)

I’m not at all confident that Reed’s interpretation of Schoenberg’s intent is more accurate than Behe’s. I guess if I had some reason to defer to the Cardinal’s - or any other religious authority - on matters of science, I would be troubled by his little essay. But I don’t.

There are a number of, sorry, just plain stupid things in this essay that I’m not so charitable as to chalk up to “poor choice of words”:

1. Slurring mainstream scientists as “defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma”. Really! This from a Catholic Archbishop! Does this man have an impish sense of humor, or is he blind to the irony?

2. “… evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not [true].”  This looks like a scientific pronouncement from someone explicitly telling us what is science and what is not. So, how did he scientifically come to this conclusion?

3. Quoting JohnPaul II now: “To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us.” I don’t know - or care - exactly what the late pope was getting at here but, in this context, Schoenborn appears to be endorsing the ID take on nature. Accusing the critics of ID of “giving up the search for an explanation” is, once again, ironic to say the least.

4. “neo-Darwinism … invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science”.  I believe the mind-numbing stupidity of this remark speaks for itself.

5. “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.” Is that what modern biology is all about?

Really. I’m curious to see whether the Vatican is going to endorse this foolishness, or explain what the Cardinal meant to say.

Comment #37133

Posted by Kumar on July 7, 2005 02:39 PM (e) (s)

Reed:

I disagree with your take on the op-ed. Rather, I think the Catholic Church is agnostic on common descent (“…may have…”).  And the op-ed suggests that even if common descent is correct, god did it.

The Catholic Church as believers in ‘theistic evolution’?  Theists, yes of course.  But the op-ed seems to suggest that the Church has no settled opinion on evolution (i.e., common descent). 

An obvious point, I’m sure: Whatever the spin put on this op-ed by the ID crowd, it’s best to stick to the (massive)evidence for evolution via natural selection.

Comment #37136

Posted by fusilier on July 7, 2005 03:12 PM (e) (s)

As a Peri-Vatican II Catholic, currently a Eucharistic minister in my parish, and a professional biologist, I am very disturbed by this article.

I am forced to read this as a step backwards from the position of John Paul II and Pius XII.  It is quite clear that those two Popes were making a distinction between matters of scientific inquiry and matters of faith and morals.  It is not clear, but very suggestive, that the Archbishop’s article is conflating the two.

Comment #37137

Posted by Longhorn on July 7, 2005 03:16 PM (e) (s)

Marco posts:

Pardon me if I chime in with a fairly brutal question. It has long been my opinion that theistic evolution is an oxymoron, and the op-ed by the cardinal Schönborn just strengthens my thoughts. As far as I understand his writing, the “thing” lacking in neo-darwinian evolution (or whatever else he choose to call it) is the teleology of the process. Catholic churc thinks that with various tools (why not mutations and natural selection?) a deity deflects the course of blind evolution toward a superior being; guess who this is.
On the other hand, all evolution books and experiments tell us that the process is directionless (nobody knows what the next environment, and therefore selection pressure, will be).
I feel these two positions cannot be held at the same time. How wrong am I?

Marco, good question.  First, some mutations were caused in part by the organism being exposed to certain levels of radiation.  So, how are you using the word “directionless?” 

Second, certain claims are logically inconsistent.  The claim God turned dust — poof! — directly into two elephants is logically inconsistent with the claim that all organisms on earth descended from one single cell that lived on earth about 3.8 billion years ago. 

I can’t tell if the claims are offering are logically inconsistent.  You would have to give me more information.

Here would be two claims:

1.  A deity or extraterrestrial specifically intervened on planet earth on one or more occasions in the last three billion years; the deity did not turn dust – poof! – directly into any organisms, but it did something; it caused a part of an organisms like an ear, or nose or a throat or a tail; this intervention caused an organism to be born with a trait that helped it produce the number of offspring that it did; for instance, it was born with a dark coat — such as a black panther. 

2.  A deity or extraterrestrial never specifically intervened on planet earth to cause an organism to live, live longer or produce more offspring. 

Those are logically inconsistent — given what I mean by them.  Are we justified in believing that either of them is true?  Well, first we know that a deity did not turn dust — poof! — directly into two elephants (one male and one female).  But did a deity or extraterrestrial specifically intervene in a more subtle way on one or more occasions?  I want more information.  It would make it easier for me to assess the claim.  Sometimes claims are too vague for one to be justified in believing that they are true or false.  But, given that language, probably no deity or extraterrestrial specifically intervened on planet earth on one or more occasions over the last 3.8 billion years to cause the existence of any organisms that have lived on earth or any parts of any organisms that have lived on earth or to cause some organisms to reproduce.  Now could Cupid have hit one of my parents with an arrow to cause them to reproduce with each other?  Probably not.

Comment #37139

Posted by Steve Reuland on July 7, 2005 03:16 PM (e) (s)

Behe wrote:

Having the weight of the Catholic Church publicly behind ID and against Darwinism will make it much harder for the Scopes Trial caricature to stick to ID.

Right…  ‘cause the Catholic Church has a long history of open-mindedness, progressivism, and rejection of religious orthodoxy.  Unlike those yahoos in Tennessee.

Comment #37142

Posted by Steve on July 7, 2005 03:25 PM (e) (s)

I’m with the dissenters here.  I took the article to lunch and read it, thought about it, and then read it again.  I’m sorry, but that article offers way too much “aid and comfort” the IDers for me to believe that is was simply the result of “poor word choice”.  Further, with poor word choice I expect words that don’t quite fit in a sentence, in this article I didn’t find anything like that.

From the article:

Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.

I’m sorry, but this just sounds like one step removed from the arguments of Behe, Dembski, et. al.  That the process of evolution is not unguided, unplanned and/or random, but that there are at a minimum times when the Designer intervenes.  Exactly how is what the Archbishop writing different?  If it is I just don’t see it.

I think Mr. Cartwright needs to be a bit more up front about how this essay doesn’t necessarily reflect a change in the Catholic Church’s views on evolution.  After all we have a new Pope and he is pretty much the sole authority and if he says, “Change it” the response is, “How?”

Comment #37144

Posted by Longhorn on July 7, 2005 03:31 PM (e) (s)

Reed wrote:

Although science can tell us that natural causes are sufficient to explain something, it cannot tell us that supernatural causes are not involved.

Reed, “science” can’t tell us anything.  “Science” can’t talk.

People can justifiably believe that an event that one person believed occurred did not occur.  I justifiably believe that Cupid did not hit my parents with arrows to cause them to fall in love with each other and reproduce.  Am I certain that Cupid didn’t do that?  Well, maybe not.  But I’m very justified in believing that that didn’t happen. 

People may choose to synthesize their faith with scientific findings by believing that something else occurred in addition the known natural causes.  It might not be as “parsimonious,” but it is what makes sense to them.

How are you using the words “faith” and “scientific findings?”  It might “make sense” to a person to “synthesize their faith with scientific findings by believing that something else occurred in addition the known natural causes.”  But they also might believe that an event occurred that did not.  For instance, some people believe that planet earth is about 6,000 years old.  Some people they have been abducted by aliens.  They probably haven’t been. 

Some people believe that a deity specifically intervened at a discrete moment in time to cause a bacteria to – Zap! – have a flagellum attached to its butt.  That probably didn’t happen. 

Such people tend to not confuse science and faith.

How are you using the word “science” and “faith?”  People often believe that a given event occurred, and it didn’t.  Or at least I’m justified in believing that it didn’t.  For instance, some people believe that Methuselah lived to be 969 years old, relative to the velocity that earth is moving right now.  But Methuselah didn’t live to be that old.  At least he probably didn’t.

Comment #37147

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on July 7, 2005 03:41 PM (e) (s)

Steve,

This op-ed doesn’t change the Catholic Church’s views on evolution because according to the Cardinal  they haven’t changed.  The op-ed reaffirms several important statements made by the Catholic Church about science and Catholic faith over the last few decades.

My understanding of these statements is that the Catholic Church agrees with the results of science, but declares that God was behind it in some way.  Of course the Catholic Church in these statements strongly disagree with anyone who would take the results of science and claim that God was not behind it in some way.  Perhaps the best description of this philosophy is dogmatic (militant?) theistic evolution.

Comment #37148

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on July 7, 2005 03:45 PM (e) (s)

Longhorn,

Please don’t expect me to defend theistic evolution since I am not a theistic evolutionist.

I will point out that people who synthesize faith and science usually do so by resticting their faith to non-materialistic claims, thus preventing conflict between faith and science.

Comment #37149

Posted by Longhorn on July 7, 2005 03:46 PM (e) (s)

Let’s return to this sentence by Cardinal Schonborn:

Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.

Schonborn seems to be saying that it is “not true” that an “unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection” caused the existence of the organisms to live on earth.  Well, is he right?  We don’t know the series of events that caused the matter, space and time that we associate with the known universe.  But Schonborn might be talking about specific intervention on earth on the part of a deity after the first self-replicating molecules started replicating.  Did a deity intervene in that way?  Well, there are some things that a deity clearly did not do.  For instance, a deity did not turn dust – poof! – directly into two elephants.  But did a deity intervene in other ways?  It would helpful to have more information from Schonborn.  I don’t know what he means by “unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.”  But given what he may mean, he is probably mistaken.

Comment #37150

Posted by Henry J on July 7, 2005 03:50 PM (e) (s)

Re “For instance, some people believe that Methuselah lived to be 969 years old”

I wonder if those people also think he drowned?

Comment #37155

Posted by Longhorn on July 7, 2005 03:59 PM (e) (s)

Reed, thanks for the reply.

You wrote:

I will point out that people who synthesize faith and science usually do so by resticting their faith to non-materialistic claims, thus preventing conflict between faith and science.

Reed, what do you mean by “faith” and “science?”  And what do you mean by “restricting their faith to non-materialistic claims?”

I know someone who thinks a deity turned dust directly into two elephants.  I think you would say that that is a “non-materialistic claim.”  And this person is mistaken.  Or, if you balk at the expression of certainty, it is overwhelmingly probable that he is mistaken.

There are some beliefs that are not logically inconsistent with what we understand about the universe, for instance, “a deity caused the Big Bang.”

Comment #37156

Posted by Steve Reuland on July 7, 2005 04:05 PM (e) (s)

If you ask me, the good Cardinal seems to be taking the ID side explicitly.  But as usual, the chief problem is that he fails to define what he means by “design”, which leaves us all wondering what exactly he’s getting at.  Most people (and certainly most Christians) would not say that evolution is in opposition to “design” in a purely metaphysical sense, but rather opposed to it in a direct sense, as in God (or the aliens) physically altering structures and planting organisms de novo onto the Earth.  For this there is exactly zero evidence, and plenty of evidence in favor of alternate hypotheses.  Whether or not evolution was guided in some sort of grand sense, perhaps beyond our knowledge, is another story.

The ID movement, true to its anti-scientific nature, was careful to adopt a term which could easily bamboozle people by obscuring, not clarifying, what the actual issue is.  The good Cardinal may be a victim of the Wedge, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t drink the Kool Aid.

Comment #37159

Posted by Steve on July 7, 2005 04:17 PM (e) (s)

My understanding of these statements is that the Catholic Church agrees with the results of science, but declares that God was behind it in some way.  Of course the Catholic Church in these statements strongly disagree with anyone who would take the results of science and claim that God was not behind it in some way.  Perhaps the best description of this philosophy is dogmatic (militant?) theistic evolution.

I guess I just don’t see much of difference between this and the IDers position.  If God took a direct hand in doing something…couldn’t it be making sure the flagellum [sic] develops as the IDers seem so hung up on?  Further, couldn’t one go from this position to the position that such interventions could be observable/detectable?  If so, it strikes me as basically supporting the ID view, not repudiating it.

Comment #37160

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on July 7, 2005 04:21 PM (e) (s)

Steve,

Sure one could make those leaps.  But not making them is what distinguishes a theistic evolutionist from a creationist and a reputable scientist and a crackpot.

Comment #37161

Posted by BlastfromthePast on July 7, 2005 04:22 PM (e) (s)

Lurker wrote:

What annoys me about this is the rhetorical spin that denying design is an “abdication of human reasoning.”  Excuse me, but what fucking arrogance.  If anyone wants to cite dogmatism in this modern times, he should not have to look further than Behe’s uncritical, easy acquiescence to an Archbishop’s opinion article.  Design is true and neo-darwinism false… because the Church says so!

What intemperate remarks.  Have you no shame?!

And, why don’t you try and use your brain instead of your hysteria.

“Design is true and neo-Darwinism false…because the Church says so!”

No!!!  Because REASON says so!!  Read the article and think before you talk!

Comment #37162

Posted by Lurker on July 7, 2005 04:28 PM (e) (s)

BlastfromthePast,

Some forms of reasoning are more trustworthy than others.  You can be sure that yours do not matter much to me at all.

Comment #37163

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on July 7, 2005 04:30 PM (e) (s)

Don’t turn this into a bonfire or I will ship the lot of you to the BW.

Comment #37164

Posted by Vic Stenger on July 7, 2005 04:34 PM (e) (s)

I have long maintained in my writings that Darwinism is incompatible with Christianity. See

Has Science Found God? Prometheus Books, 2003, chapter 11 at

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Found/11Premise.…

“The Premise Keepers”published in Free Inquiry Vol. 23 No. 3 Summer 2003, at

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Found/Premise.pd…

And for a short summary

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Incompatibility.…

Comment #37165

Posted by frank schmidt on July 7, 2005 04:35 PM (e) (s)

A couple of things:

1. “Neo-Darwinist” has become a straw man, shouted out by the IDC’ers. Schonbrun’s artice buys into the straw man. Wonder who he’s been talking to…

2. He has also apparently bought into the ID’ers view of “random” mutation as totally undirected. In fact, as has been pointed out repeatedly on these pages, it’s impossible to tell this by observation. All we know is that the mathematical model of randomness fits.

3. Although Schonbrun is regarded as an urbane man, I doubt that he has scientific credentials, in Biology or any other scientific discipline.

4. Church politics affects everything a Vatican-based Cardinal says. It’s going on here. In this case, I suspect that he is trying to get in good with his boss, the Pope, by (1) affirming an antimaterialist position, a favorite of JPII and BenXVI,(2) sticking it to the evolution-theology proponents, i.e., the Jesuits who are regarded as followers of Teilhard and therefore not really Catholic. Don’t forget that Ben. XVI censored a large number of (primarily Jesuit) Catholic theologians for entertaining too many “liberal ideas,” e.g. liberation theology and birth control. (3) Schonbrun may be angling for the job as the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Ben’s old job, I think). (4) Gossip has it that Schonbrun is thought to be too “European” and since the troglodytes in the Vatican think European = secular, he’s trying to dispell this worry. (He might then be in better position to be elected Pope in a few years.)

MHO only - I don’t talk to clergy on a regular basis.

Comment #37166

Posted by RBH on July 7, 2005 04:37 PM (e) (s)

Chris Mooney doesn’t concur with Reed’s charitable reading of the OpEd.

RBH

Comment #37170

Posted by BlastfromthePast on July 7, 2005 05:04 PM (e) (s)

Steve Reuland wrote:

If you ask me, the good Cardinal seems to be taking the ID side explicitly.  But as usual, the chief problem is that he fails to define what he means by “design”, which leaves us all wondering what exactly he’s getting at

I think the critical term vis-a-vis “design” is the word “finality” that the Cardinal uses, which, in philosophical jargon would be “final cause”, that is, the entire process of causality begins with the “end result” in mind. 

The Cardinal also wrote:

To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems.”

Richard Dawkins would ask Darwinian “believers” to hold that if they found a watch, that they shouldn’t attribute the watch’s qualities to that of design.  Now I know there’s this whole thing about reproduction and cumulative selection; but finally, he’s saying that although Nature looks designed, it is, in fact, not.  And that’s not any different than saying this found watch came about simply through mechanical means absent any intelligent input whatsoever.  On the face of it, this is a ridiculous claim.  I don’t think Cardinal Schonboern is saying anything differently than what I’ve just said.  To say “design” is not “design” becomes absurd.  It would be to “abdicate human intelligence.”  Or are we going to have to quibble with what the meaning of “is” is?

Comment #37172

Posted by BlastfromthePast on July 7, 2005 05:08 PM (e) (s)

Lurker in response to Blast wrote:

Some forms of reasoning are more trustworthy than others.  You can be sure that yours do not matter much to me at all.

That’s curious, Lurker, because your form of reasoning doesn’t seem to be trustworthy at all.

Comment #37174

Posted by Flint on July 7, 2005 05:10 PM (e) (s)

Like everyone else here, I think I can read the tea leaves. And my reading says:

1) This is at least tacitly orchestrated by the new Pope. Vatican-based archbishops DO NOT suddenly produce important Church policy positions in the New York Times all on their own. The new Pope is known to be rigidly orthodox at best, and most likely highly reactionary.

2) The ambiguity and flexibility of interpretation of the wording is no accident. Regardless of whose name is attached to the final product, we can be quite sure each phrase was labored over, thoroughly debated, and went through many drafts.

3) The Pope almost surely feels threatened by advances in biology. One need not be a biologist to recognize that scientists are successfully explaining biological history without involving the Christian God. The Pope, being who he is, can hardly help but notice the foundations of his Faith melting away from under his feet. As far as Ratzinger is concerned, his predecessor verged on the worst of all possible sins — allowing his God to become irrelevant where He matters most.

4) It is not politically expedient to discard outright the prior Pope’s rapprochement with evolution, especially with him still warm in his grave and with sainthood being engineered over in the PR department. Yet his friendship with scientific theory represents a serious undermining of God’s activities and Creation. So it becomes necessary to produce as quickly as possible something that “doesn’t change the Church’s position” in terms as close to abandoning that position as can be crafted without actually doing so. Such wording leaves plenty of scope for “clarification” based on which way the wind is seen to blow.

5) The very fact that this op-ed piece was written and published at this time is not a good sign. It’s neither an accident nor a coincidence. I suspect the goal is to judge the reactions to what is clearly an effort to backtrack, and seek to manage and herd the faithful (some of whom, as we’ve just seen, can’t distinguish faith from reason) away from a Godless reality as far as possible in the little time an 80-year-old might have to do so, and make it as inconvenient as possible for the Church to repair the damage under the next administration without appearing to waffle and equivocate.

Comment #37175

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on July 7, 2005 05:11 PM (e) (s)

BFTP,

Your argument is flawed because we know that watches are designed, not from the watches themselves, but from the watchmakers that live among us.

Comment #37176

Posted by Greg Peterson on July 7, 2005 05:17 PM (e) (s)

The reason the watch stands out on the heath is precisely because it is the only thing that is obviously designed, by the only intelligent designer we know: humans. 

We really do have to define what is meant by “design,” or perhaps come up with a better word, because I am in awe of the complexity and beauty of the (yes, I know, cliched) snowflake, but I do not believe that billions of brilliant little angels are sculpting them from scratch.

And then there is the whole problem of denying that a watch can come about by non-intelligent means while claiming that an infinitely more complex being—a god—can simply exist quite apart from any causative explanation.  Which is it?  Can complex entities just exist somehow, or must there be an infinite regress?

I see in nature exactly NO argument for intelligent design, and a robust, overwhelming argument for contingency.  While it would be insane to claim to know much more than I do, I find it much less sane to claim to know something that is contrary to the obvious state of things.

Comment #37177

Posted by Russell on July 7, 2005 05:26 PM (e) (s)

More problematic than the Cardinal’s neglecting to define “Design” is, as Frank Schmidt points out, the fundamental strawman basis of “Neo-Darwinism”. This is a very characteristic creationist ploy, and it’s disheartening to see a high official of the Roman church use it:  sweep up your supposed opponents under an undefined rubric, then attribute all kinds of beliefs and positions to it. Notice the total lack of any quotes or references to actual people?

And speaking of such creationist tactics:

Blast wrote:

Richard Dawkins would ask Darwinian “believers” to hold that if they found a watch, that they shouldn’t attribute the watch’s qualities to that of design.

I doubt that Blast really believes that. In which case, does writing it reflect a less than zealous commitment to truthfulness?

Comment #37179

Posted by BlastfromthePast on July 7, 2005 05:44 PM (e) (s)

Reed Cartwright wrote:

BFTP,

Your argument is flawed because we know that watches are designed, not from the watches themselves, but from the watchmakers that live among us.

And if the watch were found on the moon, then what?

Comment #37182

Posted by BlastfromthePast on July 7, 2005 05:51 PM (e) (s)

Greg Peterson wrote:

We really do have to define what is meant by “design,” or perhaps come up with a better word, because I am in awe of the complexity and beauty of the (yes, I know, cliched) snowflake, but I do not believe that billions of brilliant little angels are sculpting them from scratch.

Design is not tantamount to complexity.  Dembski’s “specified complexity” makes that clear.  And it is not beauty.  Afterall, the Edsel was “designed”.

Comment #37184

Posted by Lurker on July 7, 2005 05:52 PM (e) (s)

I think the only way to resolve the Archbishop’s comment for myself is that the Catholic notion of “human intelligence” is not the same as mine. 

In my view of human intelligence, a person does not need a priest without scientific training to understand the merits of a scientific theory. 

In my view of human intelligence, contingent events do not forbid one from attaching meaning, even deeply religious meaning, to them. 

In my view of human intelligence, accidents do not require one to stop searching for a cause. 

In my view of human intelligence, positive evidence that watches are designed requires positive evidence of a designing watchmaker.

In my view of human intelligence, one should be able to conceive of a deity who uses pure chance in evolutionary mechansims, forsaw all possible evolution outcomes, considered them all created in her image, and loved her creations regardless of the ultimate path chosen.

If abdicating these views means abdicating the Catholic notion of human intelligence, then so be it.  It will not be the first time the Catholics have lost people who were disillusioned with their views.

Comment #37185

Posted by Jim Harrison on July 7, 2005 06:02 PM (e) (s)

Expecting rationality from Rome is about as sensible as hinking the pit bull won’t bite you this time. If the church finally admitted that the sun was in the middle, it did so out of expediency, not because it decided that it owed anything to truth. Catholicism is no falser than any other religion, but it’s political structure—an absolute monarchy maintained in total secrecy—is the perfect recipe for duplicity and obscurantism. Remember Lord Acton’s remark? “Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Lord Acton, a loyal lay Catholic, was alluding to the papacy. Non Catholics ought to be at least that realistic instead of treating Rome with deference and sentimentality.

Comment #37187

Posted by Lurker on July 7, 2005 06:05 PM (e) (s)

I agree.  It was perhaps wishful thinking to throw around quote-mines from JP2’s writings without eventually getting the attention of the Church, and a repudiation.  Once again, it is the Christian dilemma: can Christians ever reconcile their faith with a discipline that discovers aspects of reality independently of their faith?  Today, we hear another voice suggesting, quite clearly, no.

Comment #37188

Posted by Longhorn on July 7, 2005 06:11 PM (e) (s)

BlastfromthePast, any similarities between watches and humans does not enable us to determine that a deity caused humans to exist.  Because there are some important differences between watches and humans.  First, billions and billions of humans have come into being through sexual reproduction.  That is how I got here.  I was born by my mother.  Humans are alive; watches are not.  We’ve seen humans make watches and similar things such as clocks.  I’ve never seen a deity make anything. 

Let’s say we were to find a watch on Pluto.  We would be justified in believing that a being left it there.  Like maybe an extraterrestrial — like a being from another planet.  But a deity?  I don’t think so.  Do you think so?

Comment #37189

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on July 7, 2005 06:11 PM (e) (s)

Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense — an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection — is not.

Glad to hear it.

Is the Catholic church prepared to send its officials to Dover to testify about the anti-“materialist” religious motive that lies behind the entire ID movement?

Comment #37190

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on July 7, 2005 06:14 PM (e) (s)

Hi, Blast.  Welcome back.

Last time you were here, I aksed you a simple question after you shot off your mouth to me.  For some odd reason, you ran away without answering.  Now that you are here again, would you mind answering, before you run away again?

Thanks.

Here was my question:

*ahem*

YOU are the one who wrote:

  Goldschmidt noted that the total amount of DNA within cells of lower and higher animals is roughly the same, and he speculated that all of the information for all of the proteins that organisms need are to be found in this DNA material—it just simply gets shifted about.  I think the implications for ID are rather clear…..but, of course, if I am forced to spell it all out for you, I can.

  *I* called your loudmouthed bluff by responding:

  Please do.  In as much detail as possible.  Dont’ skip any steps.

  I very much prefer it whehn IDers make specific statements that can be tested, rather than waving their arms about vague assertions such as “transpeciation” and “chromosomal changes”.

  Please tell us precisely what you think happens during speciation, and precisely why it indicates that there is a designer at work in any stage of the process.  Please be as precise, detailed and complete as possible.

  What does the designer do, precisely, in your view.

  What mechanisms does it use to do whatever the heck you think it does.

  Where can we see these mechanisms in action today.

  I’ve been asking for DAYS now to see a scientific theory of ID.  here’s your chance.  Right in front of the whole world.

  The floor is all yours.

  Well, Blast, what’s the problem here.  YOU offered to tell em all about it; *I* took you up on your offer.

  Wassamatter, is your mouth just bigger than your balls?

  Any time you are ready to live up to your own words and “spell it out for me”, I’m waiting.

And I am STILL waiting … … … . .

I assume, as part of your answer, you will explain to me where we can find a gene for chlorophyll in any animal, or at least find a gene for cobra venom in a rattlesnake… . .  .

Comment #37192

Posted by KiwiInOz on July 7, 2005 06:18 PM (e) (s)

BFTP - if a watch was found on the moon then I’d suggest that Neil dropped it.  But if it was an obelisk then it has to be aliens.

Comment #37195

Posted by Longhorn on July 7, 2005 06:30 PM (e) (s)

According to Michael Behe: “Cardinal Schonborn writes that the conclusion that life is designed is not a matter of faith, but a matter of physical evidence. He says the denial of that evidence is itself ideology; in other words, the denial of the evidence is the faith, the affirmation of the evidence is rational.”

Schonborn never says that “the conclusion that life is designed is a matter of physical evidence.”  But I can see how one can reasonably draw that conclusion.  However, I don’t know whether I should believe that “life is designed.”  It’s too vague.  I’m confident that I was born by my mother.  I’m confident that I share common ancestors with bacteria that are alive today.  Am I justified in believing Behe when he says “life is designed?”  No.  The claim is too vague.  The person should present more elaboration and data.  That will help me.

What does Behe think happened?  That will help.  I can get a picture in mind and think about.  I think some people are being obtuse, and it’s taking a lot of time and frustration.  Just say what you think happened.  It may be that what you think happened should not be taught in biology class in public schools.

Comment #37197

Posted by BlastfromthePast on July 7, 2005 06:38 PM (e) (s)

KiviInOz wrote:

BFTP - if a watch was found on the moon then I’d suggest that Neil dropped it.  But if it was an obelisk then it has to be aliens.

It’s wonderful how you’re thinking your way through things, but am I to believe that aliens can only make obelisks and not watches (would they have numbers 1 thru 12?). :)

Comment #37198

Posted by Longhorn on July 7, 2005 06:51 PM (e) (s)

I wrote:

Schonborn never says that “the conclusion that life is designed is a matter of physical evidence.”  But I can see how one can reasonably draw that conclusion.

That didn’t come out right.  I meant that one can reasonably draw the conclusion that Shonborn meant that “the conclusion that life is designed is a matter of physical evidence.”

Was I designed?  Well, what does that mean?  Did a deity turn dust — poof! — directly into two elephants?  No.  Of course not.  Self-replicating molecules evolved into all the organisms that have lived on earth, including me.

But did a deity specifically intervene and — Zap! — cause some bacteria to grow flagella?  No.  That is ridiculously unlikely.  I’m not justified in believing that it happened.

Just taken on its face the claim “Longhorn was designed” is not a claim I am justified in believing is true.  First, it is too vague.

Comment #37199

Posted by Steviepinhead on July 7, 2005 06:56 PM (e) (s)

Gosh, Blast, did you somehow OVERLOOK Lenny’s questions AGAIN.

Why should any of us pay any attention to your, ahem, “reasoning” until you do the blog the courtesy of responding to Lenny’s few simple questions, huh?

See you again in a few weeks, Blast, once you’ve convinced yourself that your inability to respond has been forgotten.

Except of course it won’t be.  Lenny NEVER forgets.

Comment #37205

Posted by Bruce Thompson on July 7, 2005 07:24 PM (e) (s)

Could it be the Archbishop snuck in the back door of the Smithsonian to see the Privileged Planet?  Where he heard Gonzales say “there’s some about the universe that can’t be explained by the impersonal aspects of nature and the mere colliding of atoms with atoms and so you have to reach for something beyond the universe to try to account for it”  narrator: “Such an approach lies at the foundation of modern science.”

One small step for man one giant leap back for mankind.

Comment #37213

Posted by KiwiInOz on July 7, 2005 08:06 PM (e) (s)

BFTP - as Arthur Dent found, his watch was of great comfort, but totally useless on another planet.  Sundials on the other hand may be more useful.

Respectfully though, I would be interested in your answers to the Reverend Doctor’s questions.  I’ve started holding my breath …. Now.

Comment #37214

Posted by Chuck Austerberry on July 7, 2005 08:17 PM (e) (s)

According to testimony from philosopher and Intelligent Design advocate Angus Menuge at the May 2005 Kansas evolution hearings, scientists like me who find evolution compatible with theism are “confused.” Menuge claims that Christianity is “committed to there being detectable design in nature.”  In today’s NYT op-ed, Archbishop Schonborn points to similar language in the catechism of the Catholic church.

But … must such design be *scientifically* detectable?  Might it be detectable through rational philosophy (another type of reason), but not through science alone?

According to many leading theologians such as John Haught (Roman Catholic) and John Polkinghorne (Anglican), science alone can’t determine whether or not biological life was designed. Design by an agent from beyond our universe (the only universe we can access via science) is a metaphysical question that, while including scientific evidence and thought,  also goes beyond science.

Maybe the Vienna cardinal, and/or the new pope, is/are indeed trying to put some sort of squeeze on Catholics like Haught, Francisco Ayala, Kenneth Miller, and Elizabeth A Johnson.  I hope there are bishops willing and able to defend these people, but in any case, I hope they remain Catholic and if necessary wait for the pendulum to swing back again.

Science, in its modern sense, wasn’t around when Thomas Aquinas was doing his work.  Where the catechism says “The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason,” I think Thomistic philosophy is meant to be included, not science alone.  Certainly the quotations of John Paul II sound very Thomistic to me (finality, for example, comes straight from the Aristotelian-Thomistic concept of “final causes”).

If you’ve read this far, you might also read Elizabeth A Johnson’s piece at
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/perspectives/johnson.shtml

I appreciate Reed’s sense that today’s op-ed in the NYT, or at least the Catholic church’s position as a whole,  is not necessarily as supportive of ID as Behe is claiming.

Cheers

Chuck

Comment #37219

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on July 7, 2005 08:33 PM (e) (s)

I have long maintained in my writings that Darwinism is incompatible with Christianity.

Um, then why, again, are so many Christians, evolutionists?

And vice versa?

Comment #37225

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on July 7, 2005 08:43 PM (e) (s)

Lenny NEVER forgets.

That’s only because I … well …  NEVER get answers to my simple questions.

Comment #37226

Posted by snaxalotl on July 7, 2005 08:43 PM (e) (s)

BFTP wrote:

And if the watch were found on the moon, then what?

Yay! the all-purpose christian intuition pump. why restrict something so useful to it’s usual form: “so, imagine when you die and you’re confronted by angry judeo-christian god demanding to know why you denied his inerrantly true bible. imagine how big an idiot you will feel.”

How unsurprising, that ID is so bereft of real argument that its proponents resort to fantasising about the existence of data which are helpful to their cause.

Comment #37230

Posted by snaxalotl on July 7, 2005 09:13 PM (e) (s)

Any time science has conflicted with religious claim, the reasonably sophisticated religions have always backed down and said “that’s what our religion said all along, unfortunately some of our number had a confused interpretation”. This has led traditional religion to avoid scientific claims. But despite claims of faith being a virtue, faithful people struggle with their doubts. If scientific verification of their beliefs comes along, they quickly change their tune from “I only require faith” to “Ha! I always KNEW I was right”. Catholicism is too sophisticated to deny common descent by a big margin, but if ID can weave itself into something plausible to typical catholics then, as a ‘scientific proof’ that evolution undirected by intelligence is not quite enough to explain what we see, it is also ‘scientific proof’ of some aspects of their faith, and you should expect to see many or all catholics jump on that bandwagon.

Comment #37235

Posted by harold on July 7, 2005 09:34 PM (e) (s)

Longhorn et al -

I have been reading this line of comments rather quickly, so forgive me if I missed anything. 

Although I totally reject the label “theistic evolutionist”, since I consider the term “evolutionist” improper even for an active biologist (I realize that a few embrace it, but I don’t like it), and am not crazy about “theist” either, I am certainly what would be refered to as a “theistic evolutionist” by many who post here.  Lest the rest of my post confuse some, let me make it clear that I not only believe that life evolved and evolves, but that to deny this is akin to denying any other clearcut scientific reality, such as gravity’s tendency to pull things that fall from trees to the surface of the earth (absent any intervening solid surface of highly viscous liquid).

I hasten to add that the God I believe in does not make use of “eternal damnation”* for anyone, certainly not for generally decent people who happen to be gay or consider themselves “atheists” (however, someone could believe in this and still share my logical position).  *Also, technically, I don’t KNOW this, but neither does Jerry Falwell, Pat Roberston, or any other mere human - only God could possibly know who, if anyone, is to be “damned”.  My personal take is either “no-one” or
“there will be some surprises”, with a preference for “no-one”.

I also add that I agree, it is almost certainly silly to conceive of God as “reaching in” and changing DNA base pairs or otherwise tweaking evolution in a crude short term way (with the caveat that this belief would not necessarily be incompatible with a productive and creative scientific career).  Science should avoid conjecturing actions by God in the physical world, for the obvious reasons that are stated repeatedly on this forum. 

There is certainly no conflict between my religious beliefs and science.  Science makes use of information available to the human senses (including information that can be deduced from what we can perceive about physical things we can’t directly perceive, of course) to interpret the physical universe.  Science has trememdous power to explain the physical universe, especially at scales other than the very very large and the very very small.  It tends to erode belief in so-called “supernatural” beings like leperachauns and ghosts, who are really just imaginary natural beings with limitations and frequent interactions with the physical world (when they are assumed to exist, that is). 

At the same time, one of the strong points of science is its perfect, instinctive, and cheerful acceptance of its own limitations.  And its ability to be incredibly creative and powerful within those limitations. 

I don’t know exactly how to express this, but - God is simply laughably beyond perception and analysis by scientific techniques, or analogies to human motivations.  Trying to study God with science is like trying to study particle physics by sacrificing a chicken and reading its entrails.  Except that it’s much less likely to work. 

It’s my personal suspicion that God has built a Zeno’s paradox mechanism into the universe (or multiverse), so that we get closer and closer to “understanding everything”, but always find something counter-intuitive, incomprehensible, or otherwise unsatisfying.  Perhaps “string theory” (which is not necessarily a ‘theory’ the way evolution and relativity are, at least not yet) will give more insight to the few who can understand it, but they’ll still only be another half way to the wall.  Even math (which doesn’t suffer from the same limitations as science, or the rest of science if you insist, and easily deals with “supernatural” entities like the square root of two and so on - and I don’t mean to be flippant by calling the square root of two supernatural, it is) ends up proving to itself that it can’t really prove “everything”.  This isn’t at all the “god of the gaps” argument.  It’s saying that the gaps are inevitable, even if we go through another period of thinking that there are no gaps (as we foolishly almost did circa 1900).  The gaps eternally recede but never entirely disappear.

It’s not a conflict - it’s a total lack of connection.  Science BY DEFINTION doesn’t deal with God.  The only God it can conflict with is an invented human God who jumps around in the physical world like Zeus turning into a swan and impregnating a maiden.  I’m not sure I’m getting this across.  It’s like, “well, duh, of course you can’t ‘see’ God with a microscope or a telescope, and of course God isn’t ‘pushing’ down the leaves or ‘changing’ the base pairs of some bacterium’s genome”.  Why would you expect to ‘see’ God that way? 

So why do science if it has limits?  Because it gives us a massive amount of healthy pleasure, and it helps us to understand a lot of useful things.  Why make art?  In a very broad sense, science is art - it’s a set of behaviors that emerges from the human brain, or mind (or even soul) if you prefer, primarily because it gives us enjoyment (that is certainly what motivated the earliest scientists) even though it isn’t necessary, in an obvious way, for short term survival or reproductive success.  And it enriches our experience and, actually, contrary to the claims of its enemies, actually helps to enhance our “spiritual” and “philosphical” lives.  We SHOULD learn about the world we live in.

Moving on…I sure wish some of the creationists would answer Rev Flanks’ questions.  They’re straightforward enough.  However, I’ll grant that it could take time to formulate a testable answer to them.  Perhaps BFP and his colleagues are working on their presentations…I’ll check this site over the next few days.

Comment #37236

Posted by Henry J on July 7, 2005 09:44 PM (e) (s)

Re “But … must such design be *scientifically* detectable?”

As scientific detectability depends on there being enough occurrences to establish a consistent pattern, I don’t see a logical requirement that deliberate engineering of life (aka “I.D.”) would be detectable. Of course, if it’s too subtle to leave a detectable pattern, then it can’t be studied unless/until we get methods that can detect it. So imo we should put the “deliberately engineered life” (aka “I.D.”) on the shelf until such time as we have actual methods that actually do detect an actual consistent pattern that implies something was engineered. But maybe that’s just me?

Henry

Comment #37252

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on July 8, 2005 06:50 AM (e) (s)

Moving on…I sure wish some of the creationists would answer Rev Flanks’ questions.  They’re straightforward enough.  However, I’ll grant that it could take time to formulate a testable answer to them.  Perhaps BFP and his colleagues are working on their presentations…I’ll check this site over the next few days.

I’ve been asking such questions to creationists for over TWENTY YEARS now.  I still haven’t gotten any intelligible answers.

I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting, if I were you … .

Comment #37258

Posted by yellow fatty bean on July 8, 2005 07:30 AM (e) (s)

BlastfromthePast wrote:

And if the watch were found on the moon, then what?

Oo oo oo……  And what if the watch was like an old-timey pocket watch …. except that the numbers went all the way to 17, and were counter-clockwise ….and there was an inscription on the inside …..and it said “A. Lincoln”

Comment #37260

Posted by GT(N)T on July 8, 2005 07:50 AM (e) (s)

“Um, then why, again, are so many Christians, evolutionists?  And vice versa?”

Because we tend to compartmentalize?  When Joe puts on the white lab coat he’s functionally an atheist, later that evening when he’s saying blessing at the dinner table, he’s a theist.  The contradiction never crosses Joes mind.

If we do recognize a contradiction in our lives we tend to rationalize.  “There is no contradiction between science and faith in god”, “science is confined to natural explanations, God is supernatural”, “God is an emergent property, science is part of that source.”

Personally, I think ‘theistic evolutionists’ (I’m a bit squeamish about the phrase too, but it is discriptive) are closer to creationism on the great philosophical continuum than they are to naturalism. I see little real difference between the beliefs of Behe and Miller.

We’re living in interesting times.

Comment #37261

Posted by Flint on July 8, 2005 08:11 AM (e) (s)

Maybe were bumping up against methodological issues again. To some people, life looks designed; to others, it looks evolved. Some people attempt to have it both ways, by deciding that evolution itself was designed.

But we can examine the mechanisms of evolution in great detail, and have been doing so for quite a while. And as time passes that body of detail expands faster than any single person can keep up with, yet it remains entirely consistent. Denying that evolution happens has become untenable in practice. The practice continues to add richness and depth to the theory at an impressive (and useful) rate.

The design part remains stubbornly beyond our methods. Despite the theoretical and philosophical efforts of some of humanity’s best minds, the strongest “support” for design stays unchanged: because some people WANT life to be designed, have convinced themselves that it couldn’t have come to be in any other way, and regard this position is so reasonable and self-evident the veriest dunce couldn’t miss it.

The conviction that goddidit provides 100% psychological utility, and contributes nothing to our understanding, our research, our hypotheses or our theories. I’m convinced that it never WILL contribute anything scientifically useful. But even the nonexistent can never be established to be nonexistent, and without question some (most?) people vastly prefer that they exist for some wonderful “higher” purpose. The design position serves this purpose, and it’s a powerful one.

Comment #37263

Posted by frank schmidt on July 8, 2005 08:33 AM (e) (s)

GT(N)T:
If we do recognize a contradiction in our lives we tend to rationalize.

I don’t think that’s true at all. As Gould pointed out, there is no science of beauty. Does that mean that one cannot appreciate a painting or music and still be a scientist? Or is this an area that science can make only limited contributions, and that’s just fine?

And again:

I see little real difference between the beliefs of Behe and Miller.

Then you should read what they both say about religion and science. There is a vast difference. Behe makes a “God of the Gaps” argument which Miller rejects, for both scientific and theological reasons.

Just as we are rightly incensed by Creationists’ ignorant caricatures of science, religious people are put off by scientists’ caricatures of religion. A little more respect, please.

Comment #37269

Posted by Ron Zeno on July 8, 2005 09:19 AM (e) (s)

Why thank you Cardinal Schönborn for making the Roman Catholic Church’s perspective as clear as mud.

My interpretation is that the church rejects evolution as religious theory, specifically “evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection”.  However, they don’t reject the scientific theory of evolution.  It’s the argument of “since it doesn’t support my religious views, it is rejecting them” with a twist: they don’t think that the science is wrong, only that the science isn’t complete because it doesn’t include the contribution of God in the process.

If it’s not doublethink, it certainly is close.

Maybe it’s wishful thinking, but I see a flip side to Schönborn’s perspective.  I think that the church might reject intelligent design creationism as science while they agree with much of it as religion.

Remember, these guys believe in transubstantiation.

Comment #37274

Posted by Aagcobb on July 8, 2005 09:32 AM (e) (s)

“It’s not a conflict - it’s a total lack of connection.  Science BY DEFINTION doesn’t deal with God.  The only God it can conflict with is an invented human God who jumps around in the physical world like Zeus turning into a swan and impregnating a maiden.  I’m not sure I’m getting this across.  It’s like, “well, duh, of course you can’t ‘see’ God with a microscope or a telescope, and of course God isn’t ‘pushing’ down the leaves or ‘changing’ the base pairs of some bacterium’s genome”.  Why would you expect to ‘see’ God that way?”

Excellent point.  It seems to me the God of the IDists is a little god, like a wizard performing magic or a genetic engineer tinkering with organisms.  If God is omniscient and omnipotent, from his pov the entire universe would be complete, from beginning to end, the moment he conceived it, and why would he conceive of an imperfect, incomplete universe which required him to perform magic to achieve his goals?  In this view, creation and evolution are both true, and there is no conflict between science and faith, since man both evolved over billions of years (from our pov, as creatures of this universe confined within the limits of space/time) and was created instantaneously (from the pov of a timeless, omnipotent God).  Creationists seem to prefer a scaled down, anthropomorphized god they can look at as a kindly father figure, and of course the only reason IDism exists is to cater to creationists.

Comment #37277

Posted by Lurker on July 8, 2005 09:48 AM (e) (s)

I would make the alternate assertion that all attempts to this day to use God as a scientific explanation have proven sterile.  It does not have to be a priori (i.e. by definition) that science rules out God explanations.  Indeed, how would one codify the Commandments of Science?  No, the point is that the history of science has shown that God explanations have never proven satisfactory for natural phenomena.  Scientists, being pragmatic people most of the time, chose subsequently not to explore God explanations as their first order of business.

Comment #37280

Posted by GT(N)T on July 8, 2005 10:03 AM (e) (s)

Frank, I think one can be a scientist and still appreciate the beauty of Bach.  I think one can be a scientist and appreciate the beauty of Genesis.  But if one is a scientist AND a believer in the literal truth of Genesis, I suspect one will experience dissonance.  One way to deal with that dissonance is through rationalization.

I have read both Miller and Behe.  There are, of course, differences.  But each accepts aspects of evolution, each believes in God, and each believes that God is somehow important in making man what he is.  I stand by my statement, I see little difference between the two.

As for religious people being put off by caricatures of religion, I don’t think I did that.  Religion plays an important role in the lives of many people.  It gives comfort and meaning.  I don’t begrudge them that comfort or meaning.  I do believe that conflict between science and religion is inevitable.  Those that are in both camps will, I fear, one day feel the need to choose between the two.

Comment #37288

Posted by Tim Broderick on July 8, 2005 10:48 AM (e) (s)

I haven’t read all the comments - I’m not concerned with the debate of theistic evolution, that’s a philosophy arguement.

I want to put forth one thing - Behe is wrong to think the Catholic Church is on the side of “Intelligent Design.”

What the Catholic Church is doing is affirming the concept of an infinite god - one who exists at the same time in the past, present and future. How can there truly be chance if the outcome is already known? Again, that’s philosophy, not science.

That article does nothing to overturn or challenge science. It simply addresses the philosophical implications of it, and rejects a conclusion that leaves god out of the equation. Why is that surprising?

That’s the doctrine of the church. It certainly has nothing to do with anything being irreduceably complex.

That’s the way to refute Behe.

Comment #37293

Posted by Flint on July 8, 2005 11:23 AM (e) (s)

Tim Broderick:

I suggest that the important question here is WHY would the Catholic Church, at this particular time with a new Pope of very different orientation than his predecessor, choose to have published in the New York Times (of all places) a statement having truly major implications for Church policy, considering (1) that position was already clear and nobody was calling for any clarification; and (2) the new statement is muddy, ambiguous, and very easily interpretable as a retreat from the embracing of science inherent in the existing policy?

It ought to be pretty obvious that the new Pope has begun the process of generating plausible deniability necessary before any substantive repositioning can be effected. There is simply no other reason for op-ed piece to exist, that I can see.

Comment #37304

Posted by Tim Broderick on July 8, 2005 12:30 PM (e) (s)

Flint:

I think you’re right to be suspicious of the motivations behind the op-ed. I think it’s a mistake to assume the Church is aligning itself with the ID movement here in the states.

Saying that philosophically things didn’t happen by “chance” but that science does discover the material mechanisms that an infinite god used is far, far different than claiming that science can’t learn more about a system or can’t propose a reasonable theory on how something evolved because it’s irreducibly complex.

That’s the key. The IDers have proposed a theory, they have to live with it. The church is addressing philosophy. Until they propose that philosophy be taught in science class, it has no bearing on this debate.

In the overall scheme, I believe we’re seeing the church become more doctrinaire, more conservative. One could speculate on why - I personally think it’s a response to changing demographics of the institution and an attempt to regain moral authority lost due to the world-wide abuse scandal (this didn’t just happen in the U.S.).

Comment #37311

Posted by Flint on July 8, 2005 01:44 PM (e) (s)

Tim:

No, I don’t think the Church is aligning itself with the ID movement, and I don’t think any of Behe’s jargon is relevant. Instead, I think the Church is concerned that their God has been assigned too remote or indirect a role in the Creation of (ahem) us. The broad-scope philosophy that their God created the entire universe beginning to end all at once, knowing that humans would strut their hour upon the stage and vanish, so transient you’d miss it if you blinked (cosmologically speaking), has some doctrinally serious drawbacks. It makes us seem insignificant and unimportant, it makes clear that we are not the purpose of the universe, and it undermines the common conception of a hands-on God who answers prayers by constantly diddling with probabilities if not engineering outright miracles.

So I think the existing Church position bordered too close on rendering their God irrelevant, unnecessary. So off we go in the direction of saying “yes, well, natural process might explain what we actually see, but such explanations omit the doctrine that our God is micromanaging every moment, without which natural process would fall far short of sufficient.”

Comment #37315

Posted by Sympneology on July 8, 2005 02:05 PM (e)