Vatican Against Intelligent Design

According to the New York Times, the Vatican is signaling its support for science:

The official Vatican newspaper published an article this week labeling as "correct" the recent decision by a judge in Pennsylvania that intelligent design should not be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution.

"If the model proposed by Darwin is not considered sufficient, one should search for another," Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, wrote in the Jan. 16-17 edition of the paper, L'Osservatore Romano.

"But it is not correct from a methodological point of view to stray from the field of science while pretending to do science," he wrote, calling intelligent design unscientific. "It only creates confusion between the scientific plane and those that are philosophical or religious."

The article was not presented as an official church position. But in the subtle and purposely ambiguous world of the Vatican, the comments seemed notable, given their strength on a delicate question much debated under the new pope, Benedict XVI.

Advocates for teaching evolution hailed the article. "He is emphasizing that there is no need to see a contradiction between Catholic teachings and evolution," said Dr. Francisco J. Ayala, professor of biology at the University of California, Irvine, and a former Dominican priest. "Good for him."

In 1996, Pope John Paul II issued a message to his Pontifical Academy of Science which declared,

"[N]ew knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [… de nouvelles connaissances conduisent a reconnaitre dans la theorie de l'evolution plus qu'une hypothese.] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."

While it's not ex cathedra, John Paul II's message seems a clear endorsement of evolutionary biology was the explanation of how the diversity of life arose on earth.

The chief promoter of intelligent design, the Discovery Institute, dismisses the article, saying that it's just "trying to put words in the Vatican's mouth."

Pope Benedict XVI, how about an encyclical telling the Discovery Institute to "go stuff it"?

Comments

[Warren]

The Vatican must still be doing penance over the whole Galileo fiasco. How else to explain such a progressive attitude towards science and so repressed when it comes to blowjobs.

[Lowdog]

That's all very interesting, but I can't say that I care what the church's position is on evolution. To be fair, I don't care what the church's position on anything is, but I don't see why it matters one way or another. This is just another example of the church seeing a need to catch up with reality before it becomes completely ignored.

'Course, I got a goddamn speeding ticket today, so maybe I'm just bitter. 😉

[Brian]

The speeding ticket was God's will, you infidel.

[Rich Ard]

I'm not particularly interested either, Lowdog, but any help the man with the big hat can offer as relates to keeping pews and polls separate makes me happy.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Let's see how the Cat Lickers justify that bit of cognative dissonance. If God created the heavens and the earth and everything in each how does one integrate that belief with the idea that the Pope evolved from left-handed amino acids that happened to wash up on a beach that appeared out of the deep at the appropriate time?

[GILMORE]

So, Reason readers, "Faith and Reason" are incompatible?

And as blogged before, people of 'faith' are not interested in any inquiry that calls dogma into question?

curious how people view previous comments in light of this.

JG

[Mr. Nice Guy]

The biology teacher at my high school was a Trinitarian brother who wore monk robes. He dearly loved science and saw no conflict at all with church teachings. In fact, it was weird seeing him say mass, because that was the only time he spoke in spiritual language.

This is one of the reasons why I'm one of the rare non-bitter ex-Catholics.

[Hakluyt]

Also from the article:

To Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor at Brown University and a Catholic, "That is my own view as well." "As long as science does not pretend it can answer spiritual questions, it's O.K.," he said.

Here lies the rub of course. What exactly is a spiritual question and what if science does start answering questions that religionists argue are "spiritual" in nature? After all, scientists have a long history of coming in conflict with what at one time were considered "spiritual questions."

The statement also hints that certain areas of "knowledge" are mysterious and can't be opened up to rational analysis, which is a sure fire way of telling me that snake oil is being sold.

[Stretch]

Let's see how the Cat Lickers justify that bit of cognative dissonance. If God created the heavens and the earth and everything in each how does one integrate that belief with the idea that the Pope evolved from left-handed amino acids that happened to wash up on a beach that appeared out of the deep at the appropriate time?

Easy. The Old Testament, sacred as it may be, was written by a bunch of crusty Jew slaves who probably didn't know their arms from their assholes. It's just bound to be full of metaphors and inaccuracies. Now the New Testament on the other hand, where we have three nigh-identical and one greatly divergent gospels, recounts the factual life of Christ (who not only became human, but a Jew to boot! Whatta guy!). Since these were written by those already touched by Christ, their veracity cannot be questioned.

See? Simple.

[Native NYer]

The Jesuits who taught at my high school explicitly stated that nothing in the old testament is true, it's all allegory. This so freaked out some kids that they actually asked for classroom time to refute the idea.

I was already so cynical that I found both positions amusing.

[Jennifer]

I read an article a few weeks ago--I think it was on "Slate"--that Catholic doctrine now states you don't have to be a Catholic to go to Heaven--even atheists like me can get in if we're good enough. Woo hoo!

Sounds to me like the Catholics are making a rational attempt to adjust to a world where they are not a major political power or the only religious game in town, and want to co-exist with others rather than spend their time in eternal warfare with the world's non-Catholics.

(After all, how can you really get along with someone you know is damned by God and going to burn in hell forever? How can you, in good conscience, NOT try to convert someone who will be going to hell?)

[dhex]

the jesuit above is correct, of course. science does not supply meaning (think of the technocratic failures of centralization for starters) any more than theology will get your car started in the morning.

[zach]

What exactly is a spiritual question and what if science does start answering questions that religionists argue are "spiritual" in nature?

That's the genius of it. Part of what defines a spiritual question is the fact that science can't and will never be able to address it, not to mention "answer". This is where religion will always have a place to operate.

The bright side is, as religion becomes less a system of empirical beliefs, it will become more a system of ethical principles, operating on empirical beliefs derived properly from science.

Or maybe I'm just in an optimistic sort of mood today.

[Ed]

Since religion is based on the unreal, it's not much of a stretch for Cafeteria Catholics to admit in an unsacrificial way that maybe God got the whole creation thing rolling and created evolution to keep it running while he attended to other matters.

[anon2]

As Hakluyt has pointed out: for some, the scientific plane encompasses the religious plane. For example, some (most?) atheists believe that God and religion are most likely man-made constructs and as such, it is within the realm of science to ask what supports that hypothesis, what contradicts it and if there's strong support for that hypothesis, what are the implications.

TWC, it's been played out for generations: the way it works is ... evolution ..., but not of species, of religion. Younger priests will teach a version of their religion that is in keeping with their knowledge of science. It appears that people have evolved a use for religion. Not too surprising, since religion has done a good job of pulling people together, and organized groups can outcompete unorganized individuals. The successful religions will continue doing what has largely worked (Catholicism, quite popular, encourages people to have kids; Shakerism, virtually extinct encouraged the opposite).

Whether it's because God created us that way, or because we evolved that way, it's clear that some people can believe in Gods (and other things) that are silly to non-believers and still be rational in other areas. Science actually has a good idea of why people believe all sorts of things, but believers tend to see how it applies to others (e.g. people who believe they've been abducted by aliens) rather than themselves.

Watching people lose their faith in realtime is interesting. I used to read alt.religion.scientology (religiously!). I haven't looked at it for a while, but it used to be that over time you could watch people change from believing that Scientology is absolutely all true, to it's great stuff, but has some flaws, to Hubbard was great, but his successor messed things up, to ... eventually "wow ... I can't believe I believed that."

We're still social creatures. In many cases it's more important to be in agreement with the group than to be correct.

[Ira Weatheral]

"Let's see how the Cat Lickers justify that bit of cognative dissonance. If God created the heavens and the earth and everything in each how does one integrate that belief with the idea that the Pope evolved from left-handed amino acids that happened to wash up on a beach that appeared out of the deep at the appropriate time?"

Heck, that one's easy. If God is outside of space and time, which he must be since he created them, then he can create in a non linear based way if He wishes. So to God the world was not created 4.5 billion years ago, or 6,000 years ago, but today. The dinosaur were created at the same time as people, but in a different temporal place on Earth. So he created the amino acid that washed up on the beach the same way and time he created Pope Rat and the same way and time he creates whatever the dominate life form on Earth is a million or a billion years from now.

[Yogi]

the Vatican is signaling its support for science:

the end times are definitely near, REPENT!

[Stretch]

The truth is that science and religion are inseperable at their root. They've travelled on divergent paths since then so that currently it's hard to see them as anything but opposites. It should be remembered that even while the Catholic Church was busy supressing some knowledge, it was also responsible for retaining much of the knowledge of the ancient world that surely would have been lost without it.

In its 2000 year history, the Church has a wildly mixed record. It has continually grown and changed throughout that time, even if at a snails pace by our standards. The cynic in me wants to think a support of evolution is nothing but a PR move, but as a whole it's clear that the church has moved away from a literal interpretation of the Bible. After all, there are two separate and different creation stories in Genesis and people don't seem flustered by the "cognative dissonance" required there.

The power of the Catholic Church, or any religion for that matter, is based upon the faith of its followers. Science may one day answer every question ever asked (I doubt it can, though), and that still would not challenge that faith. The church is smart enough at this point to realize this, and denying scientific knowledge only prevents others from believing. Not only is their no need to deny such, it's actually counter-productive.

[zach]

After all, how can you really get along with someone you know is damned by God and going to burn in hell forever? How can you, in good conscience, NOT try to convert someone who will be going to hell?

Exactly how this Christianity thing got so big in the first place.

Coming from an evangelical background (who believe exactly that), the way they reconcile themselves with (more likely just rationalize) the idea of not preaching 100% of their free time is that it's more productive to be a good example of Christ's love than to constantly breathe down someone's neck and have them ignore you. Something which they're not doing a very good job of generally, but that's beside the point.

[zach]

As Hakluyt has pointed out: for some, the scientific plane encompasses the religious plane... it is within the realm of science to ask what supports that hypothesis, what contradicts it and if there's strong support for that hypothesis, what are the implications.

But understanding the reasons for a belief does not necessarily invalidate that belief. For instance, let's say I can go back to your childhood and determine the reasons over time you became a libertarian (assuming you are one). That would do nothing to logically disprove your libertarian beliefs.

The bottom line is that if you want to believe something not based on evidence, science has really nothing to say about it.

[Dave W.]

The statement also hints that certain areas of "knowledge" are mysterious and can't be opened up to rational analysis, which is a sure fire way of telling me that snake oil is being sold.

As usual, commenter fails to appreciate the philosophical limits of science. this is why evolution-related education needs to be fixed. Comments like this one.

[zach]

Yeah, he's all, right, and stuff. We need to fix education so that his mind will be opened.

[Ed]

Science has no philosophical limits. Only scientists do.

[Lowdog]

Dave W. - once again I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you please explain? What needs to be fixed about evolution-related education? What are the philosophical limits of science?

Or if Dave can't help me, does anyone understand and can they translate for me?

[anon2]

zach,

Your first point about understanding the reasons for believing not invalidating the belief is correct. I understand why I believe the Pythagorian theorem. That understanding doesn't invalidate the theorem. However,

"The bottom line is that if you want to believe something not based on evidence, science has really nothing to say about it."

is extremely misleading, if not incorrect.

Science has explanations for why some people (e.g. some with sleep apnea) get night terrors. Some of the people who have night terrors come up with supernatural explanations of what's happening to them at night. Science has quite a bit to say about what's happening to them at night.

It's very likely that in time we'll know a lot more about why people believe various religious beliefs and that the explanation won't require a God any more than the evolution of the species requires a God.

Take certain gambling fallacies. We know they're not true, but we also understand their appeal. There is no need to invoke God when trying to figure out why some (typically losing) card players believe that they're "due" for better than average luck at a specific time after a run of worse than average bad luck. There are people in academia who actually try to figure out why people believe all sorts of things that people believe without evidence (or with skewed evidence, like the gambler who remembers when he felt due and caught the right cards but forgets about when he felt due and didn't). There's no reason why they'll limit their curiosity to non-religious beliefs.

Science already knows some things about how the mind works. It's likely to know a heck of a lot more in the next decade or two. As it learns more, the popular religions will change to accommodate the new knowledge.

[thoreau]

Lowdog-

In a nutshell, Dave W. wants a reminder in science class that none of this disproves the existence of God. He's concerned that science class may be an atheist factory.

That's what I've learned after numerous arguments. I don't know what else to say.

[joe]

TWC,

How's this: the amino acids washing up on the shore are the method by which God created each person. Or, more accurately, those amino acids washed up on the beach, and would inevitably wash up on the beach somewhere, at some time, because of the laws ordering the universe.

It's standard "watchmaker God" theology.

[Godless Wonder]

In a nutshell, Dave W. wants a reminder in science class that none of this disproves the existence of God. He's concerned that science class may be an atheist factory.

Right. And why would that matter to him or to any believer? The existence of atheists in no way invalidates his own experience of a supreme being.

I'd accept that Dave take the trouble because he cares for all of us, because he wants to spare us the pain of hell, except that he seems to be a complete dick on the topic, showing no particular strain of brotherly love that I can see, just a tendency to annoy.

[zach]

Anon, I didn't really mean that science has nothing to say about it, so much as that it can do nothing more to convince the true believer one way or the other. Since the belief is not based on evidence to begin with, and since the believer admits that the belief is based on faith, saying "look, there's no evidence for this" is useless. Going back to my first point, explaining to him why you think he has his faith is similarly immaterial to the thing itself in which his faith lies.

This of course only applies when the true believer understands the rules, so to speak. Post hoc hypotheses ("the alien abduction just looks like a night tremor on a brain scan, that's how their technology works") are a separate issue.

Joe, you don't even need to get that far into it. Take Dave W's basic approach for example; there's no scientific evidence for God, so God is clearly above and beyond science, and so may as well be his Word, Creation itself, etc.

[Jeff P.]

Well, faith and reason ARE incompatable. Just because an agency embraces both doesn't iron out all the epistomological quandries. Bush is religious and, by the standards of that religion, a sinner many times over. Doesn't mean their compatable.
In the days when the Catholic Church was finacing a number of scientific advancements, it did so to improve its own situation. But at least the CC managed to cash in on the enlightenment. Not to start a jihad, here, but to my knowledge, no protestant church other than CoE (with naval navigation) has ever backed significant amounts of scientific research.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Jamie Kelly]

"Here lies the rub of course. What exactly is a spiritual question and what if science does start answering questions that religionists argue are "spiritual" in nature?"

Science is already doing that, and always has done that. Scientific research on near-death experiences, for instance.
But the real battle is between religion and philosophy. Philosophy is better equipped to challenge religious doctrine because it is concerned with concepts normally held to be the sole realm of religion -- aesthetics, morality, etc. Religion is a set of ideas. Only ideas will defeat ideas.

[Kwix]

Okay,
What I fail to understand is WHY Pan-Abrahamist religions have such an issue with evolution. Let's get real Old Testament, wrath of God type shit here.

God created the earth in 6 days.
1) He created light which tells us, his days are definately different than ours, probably much longer.
2)He created the land and the seas (molten magma and rain anybody?)
3) He created plants(start with amino acids, move up) - check
4) He created all manner of creatures in the sea - check
5) Next land creatures - Walking fish to land lizards, check
6) Lastly he created Man(via a whole rat - monkey - man thing) - check
7) Then he took a break.

Can't wait to see what he does in his second week on the job.

[Dave W.]

Lowdog:

T. and Planner Joe do a pretty adequate job explaining my viewpoint. A slightly better summary of my views is given:

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/01/philosophy_of_design_course_in_california_high_school_challenged.shtml

at my 3.21pm comment.

[Dave W.]

Zach's re-iteration of my views is inaccurate and doesn't seem to be a good faith attempt at all. Lesser light, Zach. Sorry.

[zach]

Zach's re-iteration of my views is inaccurate and doesn't seem to be a good faith attempt at all. Lesser light, Zach. Sorry.

I realized when I made them that I was taking your logic further than you were willing to.

[Lowdog]

Well then, Dave W, I think you're wrong. It's one thing to tell students that there may be limits to what science can do, although those limits are shattered all the time. It's quite another to tell students that there may be some "supernatural" force influencing things. Students, and scientists, should be free to come to those conclusions on their own. Afterall, if you teach the limits of science, and someone still seeks answers, won't they explore many different possibilities?

Better those kinds of things be in a philosophy class. You said yourself that there are philosophical limits to science. Wouldn't that be better discussed in a class called "Philosophies of Science" or something similar?

[Number 6]

There's really nothing new here. I went to a Jesuit high school and a Jesuit university. In every bio class I took at those institutions, evolution was taken for granted.
There is nothing even vaguely incompatible between the notion that man and every other animal arose from evolution and the notion that god created man, unless one insists on an absurdly literalist reading of the bible. The solution is "God created man while making use of evolution (which he also created.)
Before the howling starts, I'm not advocating religon, only pointing out that one can easily be a theist and a believer in science.

[Lowdog]

Number 6 - that makes me think of something...

my friend is doing post-grad work in Anthropology/Archaeology (I know they're different, I just can't ever remember what he's going for). He had a book that was for a class he is TAing for. It basically calls out creationists and IDers right in the book. A whole chapter devoted to saying it's a bunch of nonsense, really.

Not saying that it touches on religion of religious thought, it just bitch-slaps the notion that evolution is not legit.

I was laughing when I read it.

[Jennifer]

I don't believe in God myself, but evolution does not disprove the existence of any god; it only disproves the existence of a god who created mankind and the world exactly as it is now, some six thousand years ago. So evolution doesn't disprove the existence of the current Catholic God, but it disproves the existence of certain Fundamentalist Protestant Gods.

It's like those people who have some horrible thing happen to them, and then say "This proves it! There is no God!" Uh, no--that horrible event only proves, at most, that there is no God who will go out of his way to prevent bad things from happening to you.

Rather a solipsistic attitude, I've always thought.

[Ed]

...one can easily be a theist and a believer in science.

True enough. An individual must simply be willing to abandon one small part of his intellect. Americans do it well.

[zach]

Right Jennifer, just as simplistic as winning a thousand bucks at a casino and saying "see, there must be a God".

It's just amusing to me to see religious folks shooting back "well you can't disprove God!" when there was never any proof to begin with. Or pointing to the fact that science cannot directly address the issue as a way of saying that the issue is somehow beyond the bounds of science. The reason science can't address the issue is that without evidence, there is no issue to be raised.

[Number 6]

Which part is that, Ed?

[Jim Walsh]

Can't wait to hear what those loonies over at Lew Rockwell have to say on this subject. Actually, I know what they're gonna say: they, like all creationist wackjobs, they're gonna say the same crap they've been saying over and over for years (generally some variation on the "airplane doesn't evolve in a junkyard" bullshit). Doesn't matter that it's been smashed to smithereens repeatedly; they just re-word it slightly and toss it out again.
Idiots.

[Jennifer]

Right Jennifer, just as simplistic as winning a thousand bucks at a casino and saying "see, there must be a God".

Or often, much worse. When I was a kid (and still a believer) I read "The Hiding Place," by Corrie ten Boom, a Dutch woman who went to a concentration camp for hiding Jews from the Nazis.

This was a truly noble and wonderful thing she did, and I feel bad for insulting her. But--in her book, she describes how, in the Ravensbruck camp, she would hold secret prayer meetings at night, and led a few people to Christ, and thus concluded that God wanted her to go to the camp so she could win a few souls for him. And I thought, "Did she EVER bother to think that logic through? Is she saying that God allowed the Holocaust to happen so that Corrie ten Boom could win a couple dozen souls in Ravensbruck?"

Or those people who say, "Oh, Auntie, that plane you were supposed to be on crashed! Truly, the bout of diarrhea that kept you from flying was a gift from God!" Uh-huh--God chose to save an octogenarian with loose bowels but let the other three hundred or so passengers die.

What appalling arrogance.

[Jamie Kelly]

Jennifer, for a survivor of trauma or someone who just happened to avoid an agonizing or violent death, happenstance and good timing just doesn't sit well in the psyche. When one ponders the existence of nonexistence, it's all too comforting to see some divine plan at work, one that worked in your favor. It is arrogant, but it's also a hyperextended reaction to the horrorific realization of our own mortality.

[zach]

Well, God clearly allowed the Holocaust to happen so that Christians could point to it and call it the natural conclusion of any atheist philosophy. This happened in the church I attended as a kid. I wish I could say it opened by eyes to the arrogance of these people, but sadly, at the time it didn't.

[Jennifer]

Jamie, if you're talking about someone saying "Oh, thank God!" in the immediate aftermath of said close call, I agree. But when time has passed, and the adrenalin has stopped flowing, and the person STILL says "God saved me but let the others die because I'm just so damn special in his eyes," THAT is arrogance.

[zach]

Correction: The speaker only asserted that the Holocaust was the natural conclusion of any atheist philosophy; not that that's why God allowed it to happen.

[Jennifer]

I wish I could say it opened by eyes to the arrogance of these people, but sadly, at the time it didn't.

You were only a kid, Zach, Stupid things you believed as a kid don't count against you.

[Jennifer]

Seth MacFarlane was originally supposed to be on one of the 9-11 flights, by the way. The fact that he wasn't proves that God wanted Family Guy to continue.

[Jamie Kelly]

Jennifer:
Agreed.
I somehow managed to avoid every single fucking car this morning on the way to work. Clearly, Jesus has a plan for my life, which tonight will include drinking a shitload of beer.

[Dave W.]

"Did she EVER bother to think that logic through? Is she saying that God allowed the Holocaust to happen so that Corrie ten Boom could win a couple dozen souls in Ravensbruck?"

I am not particularly religious, so I could be wrong about this, but I think the standard Christian logic is as follows:

God created everything, but he also created humankind with a capacity for free will and put humankind in a place where humans could make the wrong decisions from an ethical or moral standpoint, a place that would constantly challeng humankind's survival skills on both an individual and society-wide basis. A place where everybody would die. The humans do make bad decisions, and bad things do happen, sometimes at the hands of other humans, sometimes at the hands of nature. A world where justice is not automatic and is highly flawed at the best of times.

The downside of such a place is that there is going to be a lot of pain and suffering. The beauty is that at least some humans have the capacity to behave well. Not just to behave well in any old universe, but in a hostile universe that I described above. It is hard to do good in such a universe, but some people pull it off -- and when they do pull it off, the beauty of the good that they do far outshines the evil that tempts and afflicts so many others.

Now, I am in no position to judge whether this author who prayed at the concentration camps was really doing anything good. Trying to convert deathrow Jewish people seems kind of wrong under the circumstances. On the other hand, if she was trying to convince some German kids who had grown up in Hitler's Germany and got drafted into German army that there was still such a thing as good and evil despite the pervasiveness and depth of the evil and that it was still important to do good things when one has a real choice. Whichever the author was doing -- her example of herself isn't the point.

The point, rather, is answering Jennifer's question of: how can a Christian cognize and enjoy small good acts in the middle of all the overwhelming evil we got on Earth? Ans: death and suffering is expected -- the small acts of good are beautiful and praiseworthy out of all proportion for any gnashing of teeth we might be inclined to do about the bad stuff, like hurricanes and genocides and terrorism. The acts are as beautiful as they are precisely because the world is such an evil, indifferent place.

[Jennifer]

The point, rather, is answering Jennifer's question of: how can a Christian cognize and enjoy small good acts in the middle of all the overwhelming evil we got on Earth?

That wasn't my question, Dave. My question was: if someone says "God sent me to a concentration camp so I could proselytize," why didn't that person carry that thought a bit further to consider what that says about God's motivation in 'allowing' the camp to exist in the first place?

Or, if someone says "God kept me from getting on that doomed plane," they do not carry it far enough to think "And yet, God let all the other passengers die. Why was I the only one singled out to be saved?"

[Dave W.]

maybe to answer Jennifer's question a slightly different way:

A Christian would not dwell too long upon the fact that x% of the world's population was killed and the Jewish people were almost wiped out. Rather a Christian would focus on the facts that 100-x% survived and that the Jewish people came out of the Holocaust strong in numbers and political influence, with more security in their Biblically appointed lands than they have probably ever had before. If you look at a broader moral background, it becomes esier to cognize any small good acts, should they occur (again, not saying that that author you read, J., truly was doing anything all that morally great).

[Corrections dep't]

should be --killed in WW2--

[thoreau]

I am not particularly religious

Wait a minute. WAIT JUST A STINKING MINUTE!!!!!!!!

You come to every evolution/creationism thread and spend hundreds of posts arguing the creationist side AND YOU AREN'T EVEN VERY RELIGIOUS!?!?!?!?!?!?! You spend all this time insisting that science classes show some deference to religion, and you don't even have a dog in this fight?

This whole freaking argument has been an exercise!?!?!? You aren't a creationist but you play one on TV?

If you're adopting this creationist persona just for giggles, why not just pretend to be a French Marine?

[thoreau]

I don't know why this frustrates me, but it does. Weird.

[Dave W.]

T., I thought you understood my viewpoint, I think I have been clear:

I am privately a Catholic, but not a particlarly observant one.

However, I think it appropriate to consider some issues as if there were no God, as if humankind only knew what science and reason tells it -- and is uncertain on the things science and reason can't tell it. I call this mode, my science-and-reason-only hat and if you GOOGLE enuf of my old entries here, you will probably find mention of the hat (altho I can't guarantee it). One word I have used here is "agnostic," and that is because I think that science and reason only viewpoint should lead one to an agnostic (as opposed to atheist or antitheist) viewpoint.

One place I wear the science-and-reason-only hat is when I do science or engineering or the like. Like when I designed metal boxes. Or when I write patent applications. Another place I wear the hat is when I help design science class curriculums, as I do here.

Anyway, after reading this fuller explanation, I hope you feel less gypped, T. I think the problem is that I am less easy pigeonhole than a typical libertarian.

[crimethink]

Jennifer,

Salvation for (some) non-Christians has been a part of Catholic teaching from very early on. But it only applies to those who are "invincibly ignorant," who are, through no fault of their own, not given a chance to accept Christ. This might be the only hope for a Tibetan Buddhist living in 300 BC, but it probably won't apply to someone surrounded by Christianity.

And it's not just a matter of "being good enough." One saved in this way must constantly strive to seek out and follow God's will, to the extent that they can figure it out. It's a pretty high standard, one that I doubt that I could have met on my own, without the advantage of hearing the Gospel and receiving the sacraments in this life.

[Jennifer]

Crimethink--

From what I gathered from that article, that is no longer the case, so far as the new Catholic doctrine is concerned. However, I'll admit the article didn't go into much detail. But this is something new of theirs, not the old "virtuous pagan" bit from Dante.

[crimethink]

Jennifer,

Then the article was mistaken. What I wrote was taken almost directly from the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, and if anything the Vatican's (and in particular, Ratzinger/Benedict's) viewpoint has gotten more conservative on that subject since then, as evidenced in the CDF's publication of Dominus Iesus in 2001.

[6Gun]

I thought the Vatican's position was pro-creation. At the rate of scientific discovery, maybe that was last year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10007382/

[Jennifer]

Crimethink--

Oh, well. If my metaphysical worldview is correct it doesn't matter anyway, and if yours is correct I never had a chance anyway.

[Hakluyt]

Dave W.,

As usual, commenter fails to appreciate the philosophical limits of science. this is why evolution-related education needs to be fixed. Comments like this one.

As usual Dave W. fails to read what people write. Rational analysis takes in more than merely the subject of science; it includes numerous types of discourse, including the fields of history, philosophy, etc. If I wanted to discuss science exclusively I would have used that term. I pity your poorly represented clients.

Yours is a demon-haunted world.

[Hakluyt]

Dave W.,

One word I have used here is "agnostic," and that is because I think that science and reason only viewpoint should lead one to an agnostic (as opposed to atheist or antitheist) viewpoint.

That very much depends on your particular religionist presuppositions.

One place I wear the science-and-reason-only hat is when I do science or engineering or the like. Like when I designed metal boxes. Or when I write patent applications.

Writing a patent application isn't doing science.

Another place I wear the hat is when I help design science class curriculums, as I do here.

You haven't designed any curriculum here; you came up with some very vague and lame ideas in line with your religious prejudices. Honestly, you cast the air of neutrality about here as if you thought you were fooling people, but you fool no one but yourself.

[Hakluyt]

Over time you are going to see more and more cherished religious ideas debunked as has been the case since at least the Enlightenment. Religionist twits will continue to cling to their goat-herder inspired religions though despite these growing challenges to their faith due to various types of sociological, cultural, etc. inertia. Their God of course will become an ever more circumscribed one, shut out of ever increasing areas of human endeavour, thought, etc. as the light of human reason is shown into ever increasing areas which were God's original domain. It will be pleasant to watch.

[Hakluyt]

Religionists are always prattling on about the "limits of science," but one has to ask the following questions: what are those limits and are they important? Of course these limits may not exist in light of brain scanning technology (which another poster hinted at).

thoreau,

Dave W. preaches I.D. because evolutionary theory will never be 100% proveable, which means that its "limited" and thus leaves an opening for pseudo-scientific hypotheses based on the Bible and circular logic like I.D. Dave W. has an express need to attack evolutionary theory because like Behe he finds that it undermines his worldview because evolutionary theory is suffused with materialist philosophy.

[6Gun]

Concerning the obvious limits of science, I wonder how many Darwinians understand quantum physics and what it implies for reasoning origins.

Since science is limited to perception, can it absolutely comprehend all states of existence, both observed and theoretical? Might God be the unavoidable prediction at some point? The greatest minds in physics have at the least suggested as much, a holding consistent with the Vatican's abandoning contemporary ID.

If reality is actually probability, what is there in what we do not know but have begun to determine theoretically that might become a convincing God particle? Wouldn't it be ironic if having reduced physical reality to its pure evolutionary basis -- which I happen to agree with -- that we found that its undeniable origin was a "creation"?

In other words, when is "supernatural" defined? If the Big Bang requires an starting event that defies all physical reality -- perhaps as quantum mechanics already appears to -- the question isn't if God exists, it's how and when we define God.

Ergo, the God-quest is indeed purely philosophical, if not downright semantic, and will forever remain so. God cannot make a personal revelation without tearing up the entire continuum.

Seems to me that the smugness on both sides of the ID debate are misplaced. ID makes no more sense than a closed universal model does...

[thoreau]

6Gun, if you want to start invoking quantum physics to cast doubt on the rest of science, well, you've read too many popular physics books. Science works. We know that from empirical experience. The fact that we have difficulty making sense of certain microscopic phenomena does not change the fact that macroscopic phenomena can be understood in a systematic manner.

I never thought that quantum weirdness would be invoked to defend ID.

[thoreau]

BTW, I'm something of a dissident on the proper interpretation of quantum mechanics. Which makes me even more dismissive of 6Gun's post.

[zach]

Wouldn't it be ironic if having reduced physical reality to its pure evolutionary basis -- which I happen to agree with -- that we found that its undeniable origin was a "creation"?

Well... no. It would just be science at work (allowing for a minute that empirical observation could possibly lead to such a conclusion). Anyway, get back to me when it happens.

I never thought that quantum weirdness would be invoked to defend ID.

Why not? It gets invoked to defend all kinds of bullshit.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Joe, watchmaker theory it may be, theistic evolution is another term. But the dog don't hunt if you take the bible in a literal or even semi-literal way.

[zach]

However, I think it appropriate to consider some issues as if there were no God, as if humankind only knew what science and reason tells it -- and is uncertain on the things science and reason can't tell it... I think that science and reason only viewpoint should lead one to an agnostic (as opposed to atheist or antitheist) viewpoint.

Science is limited in that it can't tell you there is a UFO in your living room when there isn't. Science makes no prediction (as you say, is agnostic) as to the existence or nonexistence of a theoretical undetectable UFO. A sane mind, however, concludes that barring evidence to the contrary, there is no UFO in its freakin living room, and lay off the acid for a while.

The fact that some people thousands of years ago were convinced that undetectable UFO's populated their living rooms and controlled their destinies, and wrote this down as if it were undisputed fact, shouldn't change anything.

Now, if you show me evidence that there is an actual, real-life UFO in my living room, I will start paying attention to you. But if your best argument is, "you can't prove there isn't an undetectable UFO", I will again request that you lay off the acid.

[6Gun]

if you want to start invoking quantum physics to cast doubt on the rest of science ... I never thought that quantum weirdness would be invoked to defend ID.

I'm not "casting doubt" on science and I'm not defending ID, thoreau. Science is simply far less useful absolutely grasping absolute origins than it is say, the evolution of species. Unless you've now got the Fundamental Event nailed, it seems evolution is a better outcome for science than origins one day might be. Or might not.

Using science to claim that today one knows the cause and why of existence because he observes consequential evidence of another process is shortsighted. That's highly unscientific. And will get you into a disagreement with better minds than ours.

Meanwhile, suggesting that an ordered Universe and various possibly transcendant abstractions -- love, the question why, etc. -- are design features is no more irrational than atheists vigorously demanding God can't exist because of there being no "scientific" proof for It in 2006. Or because ID'ers are fools and religion is full of foibles. Mathematics (and indeed quantum physics) is also full of vagaries. You merely believe they're not or one day will not be (which is partly justified when history shows science progressing at a rate roughly inversely proportional to religion's decline as a physical Universal model.)

But science is in no way conclusive about origins, and using it to reduce existential processes and outcomes to purely physical models is philosophically questionable: Does the fact that all thought is biologically based (in the abstractions of quantum matter and behavior) "prove" there is nothing beyond the physical realm? That misconception would be problem underlying much of the illusion of science's purported omniscience. While science fails at origins, philosophy grapples with the permanently conflicting definitions of what constitutes creation as opposed to spontaneous existence.

I said:

Wouldn't it be ironic if having reduced physical reality to its pure evolutionary basis -- which I happen to agree with -- that we found that its undeniable origin was a "creation"?

This isn't discontinuous with science nor does it advocate conventional ID. I'm asking if a supernatural threshold exists and if our grasp of it would therefore be as much a product of philosophy and semantics as it would be "science".

But it's still interesting how, completely lacking a grand unifying philosophical/existential theory, faith plays such an absolute role in allowing scientists infinite latitude to eventually find (and grasp!) the Origin, but active moral faith is useless as a vehicle to explain principle or high human functions because it's not predictable, immediate or entirely conclusive.

[zach]

6Gun, I think I agree with everything you're saying, but I also think you are grappling with a big straw man here. I don't see anyone (on this thread, at least) "vigorously demanding God can't exist because of there being no 'scientific' proof for It", trying to "'prove' there is nothing beyond the physical realm" or purporting the omniscience of science (heh). Forgive me if you weren't talking about the opinions of the commenters here.

All I've been saying, at least, is that believing something with (so far) 0 evidence supporting that belief is irrational. God may very well exist, science in no way says he can't, but without evidence raising the question, why are we even talking about it? That's why atheism is simply a lack of belief in God, and not an active rejection of the possibility of God. When the term is applied correctly, I should say.

The idea that a simple lack of belief in God is equivalent to an active rejection of Him is a Christian one.

[Dave W.]

Zach: here are some info from answers.com:

"ag?nos?tic (?g-n?s't?k)
n.

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something."

"a?the?ist (?'th?-?st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."

I would characterize 6gun as more agnostic than atheist under the standard definitions. I wonder how much of his speil should be taught as part of science class. His speil on this is pretty ace.

[zach]

Thanks for the definitions Dave. My point stands, as nowhere in the above definition of "atheist" is it included that the atheist rules out the possibility of God. I suppose you could interpret "denies the existence of God" that way, if you want, but that seems like reaching to me. Denying that global warming is caused by humans, for instance, isn't the same as denying any possibility that it is. It's just saying "here, I've looked at the evidence and I don't see it."

I'm certainly agnostic in the sense that I agree we can't know something which by its very definition we can't know, which is how God is treated today, in these discussions. I call myself atheist because, again, I feel that without evidence it's a stupid and pointless question.

I would have no problem with Mr. Gun's spiel being included in a science class, although it seems a bit out of place stuffed in between talking about cell membranes and the like, however "ace" it is. Maybe it could be addressed when the students are being introduced to the history of the scientific method, what science actually deals with, and that sort of thing. I do feel that we don't do a good enough job of actually establishing what it is, and how it works, before we get into the meat of it; which is why a lot of people see big words in advertisements of quantum exhaust pipes that will increase your car's mileage by 1000% and say "well it is scientific!"

Think this horse is dead yet? Happy Friday.

[Dave W.]

It's just saying "here, I've looked at the evidence and I don't see it."

This is what an agnostic does. This is what I do everytime I put on my science-and-reason-only hat. That is why I am so comfortable with what 6gun is saying here, at least in connection with designing public school science classes. Looks like we have common ground, but an inconsistent terminology that divides us.

Now that you understand what 6Gun is saying in adult words, you can understand what I tried to say last month in kid friendly words:

"We know that there are fossils of older life forms. We know that these fossils strongly suggest a progression of life forms, over millions of years, generally shift from less complex to more complex. We know that these fossils show a progression toward the life forms seen today.

We know that the DNA of living creatures today, and the DNA extracted from some fossils, is consistent with a picture where the fossils are the ancestors of today's organisms. And we know that, with reasonable assumptions about mutation rates, the degree of divergence between the genomes of modern species is consistent with common ancestors at a point in the past that roughly coincides with when fossils diverged into different forms.

What we don't know is what caused the mutations. Specifically, we don't know whether undirected randomness caused the mutations, or whether the mutations were deliberately caused by some force or being with a will and intelligence. This is why some people believe in God and some don't. The randomness ppl say there is no God. The God ppl say that God, in some mysterious way, caused the mutations on purpose.

Currently, science does not have the observational tools to prefer either the randomness people or the God ppl. Therefore, debate from these sides rages on and is likely to continue to do so for the rest of your life. Hopefully, science will one day collect evidence to definitively decide between the God ppl and the randomness ppl. Science currently has no real reason to prefer either side.

Comment by: Dave W. at December 22, 2005 01:36 PM"

[zach]

Oy. I would say this is my last attempt and rephrasing my point, but if work continues to be boring as hell, it really might not be. I know this is pointless but it passes the time.

Specifically, we don't know whether undirected randomness caused the mutations, or whether the mutations were deliberately caused by some force or being with a will and intelligence. This is why some people believe in God and some don't.

False dilemma, followed up by gross oversimplification, but I don't think you really believe that simplification entirely so I'll leave you alone about it. I say "false dilemma" because it could have been influenced by an unintelligent force of some kind, there's a huge difference between a force and a being, it could have been some kind of quantum or other event we don't understand, etc.

Science currently has no real reason to prefer either side.

Reminding again that there are way more than two potential "sides", science does prefer predictive theories that are based on empirical phenomena, per Occam's razor. So this statement is simply incorrect. Science prefers the theory that a bullet is shot out of a gun due to an explosion to the theory that it is caused by undetectable aliens that exist to facilitate the operation of firearms. When it runs into the question, "how did we evolve", it attempts to use established phenomena - sex, death, mutation, competition of organisms for limited resources, etc. - to answer the question, rather than explanations pulled out of thin air and not based on evidence, i.e. "an undetectable alien did it." The fact that science can't prove an undetectable alien didn't do it ("the alien is beyond the limits of science", and on and on) does nothing to bring that undetectable alien into the realm of a legitimate answer to the question; until you've separately confirmed the existence of the alien, you need to find some other way of answering the question, scientifically.

If we discover something about quantum mechanics that somehow shows a predisposition on a subatomic level towards organizing particles into life, then that could be thrown into the mix to explain evolution (not to mention revolutionize our understanding of all of the other sciences). But that hasn't happened, so we're stuck with explaining it through other means and filling in the holes not with metaphysical ideas that violate the Razor but with a shrug for now and further experimentation down the road.

[6Gun]

I agree we can't know something which by its very definition we can't know

And I'd agree that it's inconsistent for an atheist to demand a sensory, conditional proof of the extrasensory in order to validate it ... while claiming science has answers about origins or abstractions it does not.

Are beauty, love, faith, hope, and honor less definite because they're not material? How about Origin? Is it reasonable to expect that it'll be scientifically known and experientially and materially consistent with everything that came after it?

(So this astronaut floats from his ship to the wall at the end of the universe. There's a little sign that says, 'Past this door there is nothing'. He opens the door, takes a peek, recoils, and floats back. His crew see that he returns in a highly agitated state of mind, and after he calms down, ask him what he saw. He says, Nothing.)

The demarcation between substance and perception becomes semantic: We still can't logically explain origins or even physical material, and we suspect reality is based on probability and perception. We accept on faith that gravity attracts, that matter and energy follow perfectly consistent rules, and that states have unexplainable paradoxes.

So, is there a the fixed threshold between physical reality and existentialism? Between the universe and Nothing?

Admitted abstract, spiritual, or transcendent properties do not require scientific proofs; they exist existentially -- we have that language to define them and it does not conflict reason or logic. From there, in this reality and in our minds, "God" is abstract instead of material because God exists in consciousness for that very purpose and reason -- a puppet master already conflicts the theology based on that observation. So, I'd argue against popular ID and an atheism that "refutes" God merely because there's no "scientific" proof. I guess I'm an agnostic Christian.

But logical and philosophical proofs for God apparently don't count -- too abstract, too messy, too inconvenient. But maybe no messier than asking science to bear the entire burden to prove another, somehow more important proof, without which there is no God ... and then logically none of the things that we use to attempt to define one? Can't get my head around that just yet.

If for the sake of argument we accept that God exists, that that God created the universe and man with a purpose and for an end -- free will, principle, choice, free expression, beauty, love, etc. -- would we not find this very universe the finest vehicle for such an existence?

Do we want a visible God? A puppetmaster? We don't accept those conditions anywhere else in our lives, why would God have to fit that role if we are to know reality isn't just accidental and pointless? Are atheists any more responsible accounting the human condition to randomness than creationists are ascribing physical reality to an intervening God you cannot find with your senses?

[zach]

6Gun, I don't have time to respond to every point you're making, so let me address what seems to be your central fallacy: that is, treating atheism as a complete view of the world; in other words, a religion, that's invalid if any of its "tenets" are incorrect. I don't know how many times I have to say, all it means is that, based on the evidence before me right now, I don't see a God. This doesn't mean I "[account] the human condition to randomness", it just means I don't account it to a God. I do account it to at least a combination of physical processes, natural selection, and all of that, because that's what the evidence suggests. But I of course allow for the possibility that the evidence could be faulty. I recognize that there's likely a huge amount of information about the universe that we'll never have, and that while our best guess is that those things did take place, and are part of our origins, they're probably only the tip of the iceberg. What I'm not going to do is make a wild guess as to what may lie in that ocean of undiscovered truth, such as the existence a God, and say that I believe that.

As I said in another thread, science tells us what our condition is at least, not at most, which seems to me the view you have of it.

So the answer to your question, "Are atheists any more responsible accounting the human condition to randomness than creationists are ascribing physical reality to an intervening God you cannot find with your senses?", is a resounding "No". But that's not what atheists do.

[6Gun]

zach, that's entirely reasonable but intolerance is indeed what a lot of atheists practice, and they do it secure in their scientific credentials. The previous thread here at Reason is ample proof.

[Jennifer]

What we don't know is what caused the mutations.

Cosmic radiation.

[Hakluyt]

zach,

Dave W. is ignorant of the differences between strong and weak atheists. That he is unaware of these differences demonstrates how unserious a scholar he is. Dave W. arguing that science isn't philosophically materialistic is pretty funny.

6Gun,

Are beauty, love, faith, hope, and honor less definite because they're not material?

Given our ability to actually analyze and rationally conduct surveys of such concepts this seems to be a rather strange concept. Beauty may be subjective but we can certainly create criteria for and reason our way through why certain objects are considered beautiful.

zach, that's entirely reasonable but intolerance is indeed what a lot of atheists practice, and they do it secure in their scientific credentials. The previous thread here at Reason is ample proof.

Intolerance is when atheists start passing laws mandating that your religious beliefs are verboten. If your main complaint is that we hurt your widdle feelings, well, my suggestion is that you grow a thicker skin.

Dave W.,

BTW, the notion that concepts like God and the like are beyond rational analysis (which always remains the kernal of what you are arguing and really the only important thing in any of your statements on matters of science) would come as a shock to Christians involved in the practice of apologetics. Hinting as you do that only atheists are involved in such endeavours reveals what I can only consider a critically ignorant attitude on your part.

[science]

"Intolerance is when atheists start passing laws mandating that your religious beliefs are verboten."

I do believe it is the idea of banning intelligent design from the classroom that motivates the very debate.

[Ned]

"I do believe it is the idea of banning intelligent design from the classroom that motivates the very debate."

You're not claiming that's equivalent to banning religious beliefs, are you? Because saying religion can't be taught as science is quite a bit different than banning religious beliefs.

Also, it's worth pointing out there are a lot of religious people who also oppose teaching ID in science classes.

[Nike Free Run d?mske top?nky]

Nicely done