Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Are All Coynes Made of Dross? — First Jerry and Now George!

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was “wrong” and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/18/D8DV0FEO0.html

Comments
"what of the numerous mentions of original sin in the bible" Um...can you show me one? St. Augustine coined the term.GentDave
November 30, 2005
November
11
Nov
30
30
2005
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
I think Coynes is just expressing Theistic evolution, but not the sort of thing ID says. ID argues for things like "irreducable complexity". Coynes would disagree, and say that natural forces DO have the capacity to cause the complxity we see. But just because they have the capacity does not mean that natural forces alone were responsible. Evolution depends on random mutation. But replace the word "random" with "non-deterministic", and then one could say that some non-deterministic events are indeed random, but some are choices made by God, and/or other creative entities. I may be putting words in is mouth, but everything he said is fully consistant with a someone who believes in "process philosophy" and also accepts basic Catholic teachings like God's creation of the universe, and the miricle of Christ. So that is what I would expect he believes. That, or something very close to it.GentDave
November 30, 2005
November
11
Nov
30
30
2005
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
Speaking of mediums... check this out: http://www.lilydaleassembly.com/ This place is like psychic central. It's about an hour's drive from where I grew up and has been around for over a century. My family has been going there on occasion since before I was born. My first memory of it is going on 50 years old. I took my children there too. It's quite an experience and while it isn't free it's less costly than Disney World.DaveScot
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
jmcd, I hear you and your approach is perfectly logical. However, I think your analagous examples are a bit limited. If you examine the account of Christ's bodily resurrection, for example, you learn that he appeared to over 500 people at once in just one of his post-resurrection appearances. And the manuscript evidence across the board, details this. When you combine these accounts with things like, how 12 scattered cowards who feared for their lives, were suddenly willing to sacrifice their lives for what they believed in. It all adds up to a solid case for the supernatural being real. It's at least worth looking into. As for natural processes producing life, I would argue that we are seeing more and more that unguided natural mechanisms cannot produce life at the complexity which we observe. When we consider things like Irreducible Complexity and the Cambrian Explosion, it seems to point towards purposeful supernatural events.Bombadill
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
nobody to anybody at the bottom of the 2nd paragraphjmcd
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
sorry scratch the however at the bottom of the first paragraphjmcd
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
Bombadill I certainly do not reject supernatural events outright, and I do consider their legitimacy. The Bible certainly is an accurate historic document in many regards. I do not view eye witness testimony as particularly compelling evidence. There is no shortage for modern eyewitness testimony of the existence of ghosts.While I would like to believe in the existence of ghosts however history has shown that many such claims are fradulent or a case of an overactive imagination. Early this century mediums were the rage. Scientific American offerred a substantial cash reward for any medium that could demonstrate the authenticity of their craft. Many mediums attempted to claim the prize and many were debunked by the review board. There were a few however that were "verified" by the review board and nearly claimed their prize. That is until Mr. Harry Houdini stepped in to expose their quite ingenious tricks. If no one could demonstrate an ability to contact the dead then it is likely that nobody could do so today and that the psychics are almost certainly frauds or victims of self-dellusion, but hey who isn't. Sorry for the digression. As far as my views on the supernatural and the history of life go, I think it a good bit more likely that we are a product of natural processes. I think there is a tremendous amount about the mechanisms of evolution that is not currently understood, but that lack of understanding is not, for me, a compelling reason to abandon the search for natural processes i.e. science.jmcd
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
Phil: The ITC wrote:The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. Resist the temptation to use theology to "prove" NS. They also wrote:But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. NS is not incompatible with Catholic teaching. That's not the same as saying Catholic teaching insists on NS. The position stated above, I believe, fully conforms to Michael Denton's in his Nature's Destiny. God "could" use NS--and many IDers agree that He does when it comes to "microevolution." But Nature itself does not confirm that "macroevolution" results from NS. jboze3131: yeah. but both the pope and the cardinal posit purely natural processes that god used to create life and finally humans. i see problems denying creation itself…but i see even bigger problems with positing natural processes and not god guided processes that bring man about. The Catholic Church would never deny "divine causality." The argument is--and they give science great latitude in trying to determine this--is the causality "primary", that is, God "directly" brings something about, or is it "secondary", that is, God brings is about through created causes (the causal natural order). What is essential, for faith, is "divine causality", not whether it is primary or secondary. You seem intent on saying, definitively, based on the Bible, that it is primary. I remember what a Jesuit told me once: "Look at the creation account. The sun was created on the third day. How can you have a "day" without the sun?" Moral of the story: let's be careful.PaV
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
jmcd, if there is compelling evidence which demonstrates that a document(s) is historically sound/reliable, and if this document records supernatural events, and if the reliable documentation details numerous eye-witness accounts of supernatural events, then there is grounds for further investigation and consideration. We have governing principles that allow us to test the authenticity and reliability of ancient documents - this is called Textual Criticism. The Bible manuscripts demonstrate an uncanny constency and reliability, more so than other historical volumes which are viewed as indesputible fact. So, it is only logical to consider the legitimacy of the supernatural events presented in the writings and not let lack of experience with certain phenomena cause us to outright reject it. Again, it is entirely possible that God chooses to reveal himself via the finished redemptive work of Christ and scripture clearly demonstrates that God deals with his creation differently now, since the closing of the Apostolic era. When you couple the historical evidence with the subjective experience of countless transformed lives today... you can build a cogent case, in my opinion. :)Bombadill
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
But he definitely did not chose to reveal himself to Mohammed? "we have a modern western prejudice against the supernatural " "we shouldn’t be willing to disregard something because it doesn’t fit in to our little prejudiced paradigm" Bombadill Its not a prejudice against the supernatural. There is just no compelling evidence for supernatural events. Everything we know about the universe suggests that it and everything in it behaves according to natural laws. If someone (in the West) is not indoctrinated with fundamentalist teachings they simply see little reason to believe in the supernatural. Many non-fundamentalist christians believe in the immaculate conception and other biblical events, but for whatever reason are not so apt to believe in modern supenatural events. The way I see it We ascribe supernatural causes to unexplained events or phenomena. Knowledge about the world has always shown these events or phenomena to be natural. I am not going to say that the supernatural world does not exist or that it cannot interact with us. I could not possibly prove such things. What I can say is that I have good reason to believe in a world governed by natural laws and no reason, as of yet, to believe in the supernatural. To me the human religious experience is perfectly natural and indeed necessary. It does not offer anything in the way of proof as I see it.jmcd
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
I'm getting sick of this thread!Benjii
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
Dave, there is no question that we have a modern western prejudice against the supernatural - "I ain't never seen that before, so must not have happened!" The point I would make is that maybe we shouldn't be willing to disregard something because it doesn't fit in to our little prejudiced paradigm. There are compelling reasons to believe that God chose to deal with this ancient group of people and reveal himself in a way that was specific to their need and to their culture. And that He chooses to reveal himself today in the finished redemptive work of Christ. As for why God chose people to pen his revelation... I believe that God created us to choose to love and obey Him with true free will. He already revealed himself in a supernatural way and now desires that we read His word to learn of this revelation. The Bible also teaches that He is brought glory through the use of his creation in revealing His word.Bombadill
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
"#94, a lot of that stuff is conjectural and may not be a good source of info" I will certainly agree that the rapture of born-again Christians, armegeddon, rise of the anti-christ, tribulations, etc. etc. etc. is conjecutural in nature. But you're wrong about it not being a good source of info about fundamentalist Christian beliefs in the U.S. If you don't recognize the terms you really don't even know much about doctrinal Christianity. Unless you've at least read the Left Behind series, all 2000 pages (or more) you have no idea how accurately it follows fundamentalist doctrine. Granted fundamental Christians aren't monolithic. Some are pre, some are mid, and some are post... ;-) Left Behind is pre so as to get the maximum evangelical fear factor effect. This might help get you up to speed: http://www.catholic.com/library/Rapture.aspDaveScot
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
01:20 AM
1
01
20
AM
PDT
#94, a lot of that stuff is conjectural and may not be a good source of info I agree we should stay on topic though. How about applying E. Filter to prophecy :)anteater
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT
"Less bible thumping and more NFL thumping seems to be in order." I agree with Dave. There are places you can go for heated theological debate, but this blog is not one of them. Besides, I think we all realize there are people who love to falsely equivocate ID with theology. Let's not give them fuel to add to their fire.crandaddy
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT
"Wait…I’m looking over to the right panel of the website and I’m seeing the category “religion.” Wait, I also see “philosophy” as well!" And which category is *this* article filed under? I'll give you three chances to say "intelligent design". :-)DaveScot
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT
2000 pages of biblical prophecy of the end times with some somewhat shallow fictional characterization to make it more readable, written by a guy with a Doctor of Ministry degree from Western Theological Seminary and Doctor of Literature degree from Liberty University isn't sufficient to get a handle on what fundamentalist Christians in the United States believe? Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me. ROFLMAO!DaveScot
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT
Yeah everyone. Listen to Dave Scot- he's your boss. Wait...I'm looking over to the right panel of the website and I'm seeing the category "religion." Wait, I also see "philosophy" as well! Dave wants us to "spare" him and not talk about these absurd religious notions that are mere superstitious fairytales from lice infested ignoramuses.jboze3131
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT
Reminder: The blog is entitled "The Intelligent Design Weblog of William Dembski" not "The Evangelical Christian Weblog of William Dembski". Less bible thumping and more NFL thumping seems to be in order.DaveScot
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT
and i hardly think a series of novels gives you an idea of current christian beliefs in the US or anywhere else for that matter.jboze3131
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT
what religion DOESNT think it has the line on god? itd be pretty pointless to say "we worship you god...well, if were doing it right, and if youre the right god, and if youre doing what has been claimed you do for us! amen!" lets pray to go with the note beforehand that were not totally sure of what we believe.jboze3131
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT
For more of these fundamentalist beliefs, take a look at Chuck Missler's site (I think you know him).anteater
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT
Claims are cheap.DaveScot
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT
"you got the inside line to God. You know the truth and everybody else is wrong" You hit the nail on the head; that's exactly what the Bible claims.anteater
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT
"You expected what? God to come down daily and express his message throughout all of history?" No, but I certainly expect more than claims from ordinary people recorded thousands of years ago. "I wonder if you can be a bit more rude concerning the holy book of 2.1 billion people." Rude? Hardly. Lice ridden beduins and clay tablets is historically accurate. You seem to be interested in historical accuracy. Sorry if I didn't gild the lily enough for you. "I take it you know little to nothing of biblical studies." I read the "Left Behind" series so I figure I'm up to date with the U.S. fundamentalist beliefs. Surely you're not going to claim that Christian prophecy is a monolithic block with no disputes between so-called scholars? The Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims all have major bones to pick about what the exact same texts prophesize and within those branches of YHWH believers there's considerable differences of opinion. For God's sake the topic of this thread is the considerable rifts between members of the Catholic church. And what about a billion Hindus and Buddhists - seems pretty arrogant to just write off their beliefs. That appears to be what some of you here are doing - you got the inside line to God. You know the truth and everybody else is wrong. How very special.DaveScot
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT
"Seems a bit odd to me that the creator of the universe needed some lice ridden beduins to write his messages down on clay tablets" The weak things of this world are used to confound the wise.anteater
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT
Ive no use in posting anything else to PT. I just love how the children come out to play and personally attack anyone who doesnt share their views. Youre automatically stalin-like, hitler-like, a fascist, an idiot, anti-science, a theocratic nut, etc. Hate hate hate.jboze3131
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT
Each blog has its overtly zealous ideologues, which is understandable, given the extremely polarizing nature of the issue at stake. Scientific investigation into biological origins touches a very sensitive nerve in the human psyche; it meddles with an issue strongly connected with a person's metaphysical faith, be it theistic or non-theistic. Personally, I choose not to post on the Panda's Thumb because I know little, if any, good can come from it. As someone who thinks ID has some merit, I realize I will be showered with scorn, bigotry, and hatred, and I can surely do without that. I won't say everyone over there is that way, but they're certainly not hard to find. Let us try, on this blog, to post sensible, thoughtful comments and not resort to personal attacks. Everyone (myself included) needs to try to keep a reasonably open mind. Biases and prejudices inevitably cloud the rational judgement of even the brightest minds if left unchecked; be mindful of that. I don't mean to police this blog. That's Bill's job, and I trust his judgement. I just don't want to see it descend into the gutter, and I fear that's where it may be headed. BTW, Josh, maybe you should give PT a rest for a while. Try to focus your energies on something more productive. Davidcrandaddy
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT
"Seems a bit odd to me that the creator of the universe needed some lice ridden beduins to write his messages down on clay tablets." I wonder if you can be a bit more rude concerning the holy book of 2.1 billion people. You expected what? God to come down daily and express his message throughout all of history? The issue isn't supernatural acts of God- it's hisorical reliability, reliability concerning prophecies, etc. I take it you know little to nothing of biblical studies.jboze3131
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT
Bombadill "The manuscript evidence for the Bible, specifically the New Testament, is more reliable than standard works of history which are considered fact." There's an elephant in the room you seem to be overlooking. Standard works of history don't describe supernatural acts of gods and goddesses.DaveScot
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply