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

_{William Dembski

November 18, 2005

Evolution, Intelligent Design}

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

So why did God need to speak through human representatives? 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. You guys are free to believe whatever you want of course.DaveScot_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

The role model is the image of Christ as a man of love, forgiveness, charity, and kindness to all living things. I don't really know if that's historically accurate or not. It doesn't really matter if it's historically accurate or not.DaveScot_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

He has a big head. However, it seems like his brain is small.Benjii_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

Ol' Nick I saw numerous times on TV...and I just wanted to slap the screen and hopefully put some honesty into him. He would sit there and make bogus claims again and again- sometimes the interviewer would actually call him out on his constant lies, which is always hilarious. He IS with NSCE (or is it NCSE? I always forget) right? It seems all manner of dishonesty comes out of that organization!jboze3131_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

It find it funny that they think Bill even reads the site, let alone (as they claim) monitors their site. Hardly. Everytime anyone of the ID persuasion posts anything, they're attacked as idiots. Just look at the the numerous personal attacks against me (I made no personal attacks...I said they were acting like children, and they ARE...heck, they're over there talking about posting comments here just to cause trouble- that's the definition of childish.) Anyhow- check out the attacks on me personally. Sounds like a bunch of kids, yet sadly one of the most hateful posters on the site is PZ Myers, who is, sadly, an adult. Leaves me little doubt that most of them are adults merely acting like children.jboze3131_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

"then again, this is the same site with the hate-filled PZ Myers and the dishonest Nick Matske posting their viewsÃ¢â‚¬Â¦so this isnt much of a surprise." I totally agree with you. I actually am thankful to P.Z and Nick. They made me lose my faith in Darwinism. They remind me why I am not a darwinist. I don't even waste my time looking at their postings. It's all drivel to me, to be honest.Benjii_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

I'm not sure if it's amusing or sad, or both, that the Panda's [quite useful and well designed] Thumb folks spend so much time sitting around like a bunch of old busy-body gossipy grannies, pasting things from Dr. Dembski's blog and such. Perhaps they should take up a hobby or craft... like Canasta, for instance.Bombadill_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

the kids over at PT are actually complaining that Bill deletes certain comments. someone said they came over here and posted just to start trouble...then complained that bill would surely delete it! golly- someone deleting comments merely meant to start trouble? what nerve! then again, this is the same site with the hate-filled PZ Myers and the dishonest Nick Matske posting their views...so this isnt much of a surprise.jboze3131_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

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.jboze3131_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

well these many theologians are clearly wasting their time. if they dont see a literal fall, a literal adam and even, a literal reading of original sin...then they cant possibly have a literal reading of christ or his miracles or his resurrection. which means their theology, in general, is completely bankrupt. if theres no literal christ (or to a lesser degree a literal rising from the dead, healings, a need for his redemptive powers, etc...what on earth do these particular theologians worship and why?) if all of these things and more are merely symbolic- theres really no religion at al. if youre entire theology is symbolic, then you really have no theology. if all of these things are seen as symbolic, what of heaven and hell? if no heaven or hell, why christ? christ has no role if hes not needed to redeem us from our sin. there are dozens of problems with this view.jboze3131_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

by hearing coynes views, the cardinals views, and even the views of the pope that the creation of humankind is the result of natural processes that god merely kicked off- im wondering what catholics in general believe. I'd say that there's a huge difference between Coyne's beliefs and the Pope and Cardinal's beliefs. The two of them believe that humans were intended by God, and that He acted in such a way as to guarantee this outcome. Thus, even if humans were created through an evolutionary process of some sort, it wasn't random, much as a programmer develops a computer program over time instead of doing it all at once. Coyne, on the other hand, believes that God (or whatever) created the universe (maybe), but isn't in control of it, and didn't intend anything in it. At best, he (or it) hoped that something like humans would exist, and got a lucky suprise. In the Cardinal's view, humans were an intended goal, in Coyne's view, they were an unintended byproduct.Deuce_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

jboze: Many Christian theologians accept the bible as teaching through metaphor and symbolism. They reject the literal interpretations of mnay parts of the Bible i.e creation less then 10,000 years ago, adam and eve, original sin, fall of man, redemption through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ etc. They will tell you they don't reject those parts of the Bible (old and new testament) but that they interpret them from an esoteric viewpoint. Although people like Coyne fall into another category altogether. He doesn't attempt to explain his beliefs as being metaphorical interpretations of the Bible. His beliefs appear to be based on certain Kabbalistic beliefs, or that could be coincidence. But I doubt it because he is so sure of himself and doesn't speak about the possbilities of his ideas, but about the absolute truth of them. He is on a type of crusade to preach his message of the evolving universe and the evolution of God and life. He is either extermely egotistic or he has faith in a specific religious doctrine which he is trying to push forth.mentok_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

We just don't know how God did it all? What I do know, is, that it surely wasn't a product of chance. I wonder if Behe will ever have a blog of his own, kind of like Bill?Benjii_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

by hearing coynes views, the cardinals views, and even the views of the pope that the creation of humankind is the result of natural processes that god merely kicked off- im wondering what catholics in general believe. if youre picking and choosing what parts of the bible to accept as reality and whats just nonsense story telling- where you draw the line? who chooses and how do they choose which parts are actual history and what parts are fabrications? these ideas make no sense to me. and with this attitude, no wonder theres such a divide between protestants and catholics. if i viewed the bible as mere story and god as not a creator and designer, then id have to do away with most of christianity- the first man and woman, their purpose, the fall, original sin, need for christ, etc. if the pope and the others mentioned believe a natural process that god simpky started is how we all got here- why the need for christ? if adam and eve werent real, then there was no fall...if no fall, then what role does the catholic church see for christ? any role at all? thats my beef with the catholic church overall- too little bible (you can hold the bible above your head and light candles before it all you want, but if you neglect what the word says for your own manmade traditions- its worth nothing), and way too much in the form of catholic doctrines that were decided upon by vote basically. the church tries way too hard to put itself above the word, which the bible makes clear is never a good thing. then again, learning about the church- im seeing more and more extra-biblical traditions that have become solid catholic doctrine. also a big no-no in my book if were to respect the word.jboze3131_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

"Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible" - http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.aspBombadill_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

phil: What Coyne wrote in an article attacking ID is done for his own propaganda purposes and different from what he teaches at universities. He teaches to students what I wrote. At this link http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/VOFTalks.html You can see a lecture and slideshow in Arizona called "The Dance of the Fertile Universe". It's over an hour long and incredibly boring. But at the end he brings up the question of God. Before that he gives a childlike presentation on how the universe "evolves" and then he asks rhetorically "How does God fit into all of this" He answers "He doesn't". He goes on to explain how God isn't involved in the evolution of the universe as it progresses in complexity from atoms to stars to planets to humans. God somehow set in motion the laws of physcis and then he let the universe evolve without interference. Then there is another lecture at: http://tinyurl.com/9gulp (only the .mov file works) It is called something like Sacred Cows: When science and religion meet. It is essentially the same lecture as the previous one. At the end he goes into a bit about how God fits into the "evolving universe". Here are some notes I took from what he said with my comments in brackets. 1) "God is not a source of knowledge, just love". [God is the source of all knowledge. God is the supplier of all knowledge because he gives us life and mind and intellect and maintains them without which we cannot understand anything. God is also designer and the creator of all things knowable. At every moment we only know what God has created and what God is showing us.] 2) "Humans evolved from the universe". [Human bodies were designed by God. Human consciousness or souls have been created as well by God out of his own infinite consciousness or soul] 3) "It was inevitable for the human brain to come to be due to increasing natural complexity" [There is no known mechanism in nature which can provide a rational explanation for the "increasing natural complexity" paradigm to "evolve" matter into living forms. So saying that it is "inevitable" for humans to evolve from molecules is based on no actual scientific basis. Even if evolution of species were true, there is no proof and it has been proven impossible for abiogenesis to take place. Therefore humans and in fact all life could not have come about due to the universe becoming more complex.] 4) God did not design anything that exists in the universe, he made the conditions for evolution. Ever more complex things came into existence due to the natural flow of increasing complexity or evolution. [Why wouldn't God design the stuff in the universe if he could create the laws of nature? What is God doing in the mean time while he sits and waits for something to happen? According to Coyne the Earth came about by chance, it exists where it does in space in relation to a star by chance, the conditions on earth for life as we know it came to exist and flourish by chance. I say God did it all by design and effort.] 5) "There is no scientific rational basis for belief in God". "Only through God's personal gift to the person through love can you believe in God". [The natural world screams out the necessity of an organizing principle, a prime mover. Numerous top physicists say the same exact thing. The natural world is a very delicate balancing act, everything is just right for life as we know it. A slight change from over 40 physical laws or qualities and there would be no life at all, no stars, no nuclear bonding, no elements, no planets, no life etc. The anthropic principle is accepted by numerous scientists as showing the natural world as being dependent on an intelligence working on a cosmic scale in order for the natural world to exist with the extreme precision which it does.] 6) "Does God know human life will come to be before it evolved? No God hoped but did not necessite or cause that humans come to be". [Coyne says God gives no knowledge. Then how would Coyne know what God knew before humans came into existence? How does Coyne come to speak for what God knows? doesn't know? did know? when he knew it? etc? How does Coyne know what God "hoped" for?] 7) Question from audience: Why does Coyne believe there is a God? God is love. You cannot explain why people believe in God, it's "ineffable". [God is love? And here I was thinking that God is an intelligent person. An infinitely massive powerful unified field of infinite hyper dimensional energy/consciousnes/mind/psyche. A cosmic force which pervades and is the ground of being for the universe of matter and energy. The substratum of the natural world, a super conscious, super intelligent, very ancient entity which subsumes and creates, maintains and destroys, everything that exists or can ever exist. Silly me. Coyne says "God is love". Kind of like a feeling or something which is all warm and fuzzy and wishes us good luck if we should ever chance to exist.]mentok_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

I agree with Bombadill and Jboze, however, I find DaveScot to erratic and inconsistent in his assessements of many things. Sorry Dave, I'm just having a hard time understanding you.Benjii_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

The manuscript evidence for the Bible, specifically the New Testament, is more reliable than standard works of history which are considered fact. The New Testament was originally written between 50 and 100 A.D. There are presently some 5,000 Greek manuscripts in existence, with as many as 25,000 more copies. The earliest manuscripts can be dated back as far as 120 A.D. Scholars who have compared the earliest written manuscripts with manuscripts written centuries later - there is virtually zero variance. They remain consistant in an uncanny way. The science of textual criticism has demonstrated that what we have in our Bible is incredibly reliable... I would venture to say that God has preserved his word. http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html http://www.equip.org/free/JAR011.htmBombadill_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

i should also point out that, in a court, EVERY historical document from ancient history would be hearsay. unless we can find some 3, 000 yr old guy sitting around waiting to testify.jboze3131_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

"your role model" that is.jboze3131_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

I'm also wondering why you even respect Dembski, who surely doesn't share your view of the Bible being a fabrication...you respect his science ideas, yet you think he's a quack in his worldview. Massive problems with even that view.jboze3131_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Dave Scot...now you're really making no sense. You're on record as saying your peronsl role model is Christ, yet you just said that the Bible is a fabrication (a lie)...so, you're role model is a man who supported and helped spread a lie?jboze3131_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

"was christ mistaken (which makes it obvious he wasnt god)? or was he trying to trick us?" Or are the accounts recorded thousands of years ago in the bible innaccurate, distorted, and/or fabricated? I'm going with option #3. In a court the bible would be called "hearsay". Let me know when they find Noah's ark. I'm real curious as to how at least 2 of every animal was fit into it, how Noah managed to round up animals from the four corners of the earth, and how he managed to get them relocated after the flood was over. Or maybe it just didn't happen that way...DaveScot_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

the only way we COULD get to this point of reading genesis as saying a natural evolution via purely natural processes and god not creating all of life, just kick starting it all- wed be left with a fable. if genesis is a fable, then why did christ die on the cross? if adam and eve werent real people, what of the numerous mentions of original sin in the bible? if theres no adam and eve, theres no fall, if theres no fall- why then is there death at all? if theres no fall, theres no sin, then why a need for christ? if no need for christ, then why even call the religion christianity? if no need for christ, then he died for nothing? this natural processes view of god kick starting things- it causes more problems in doctrine than we could possibly name in this entire thread.jboze3131_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

"Are you being sarcastic?" No.DaveScot_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

actually phil, you might want to change that to the way the great majority of christians (especially in the US) interpret the bible. genesis was clearly written as a historical narrative...not poetry or anything else. there had to be an actual adam and eve, or why on earth did christ claim to have come from the very bloodline of adam? was christ mistaken (which makes it obvious he wasnt god)? or was he trying to trick us? im not sure how anyone on earth could get a reading of genesis that asserts a natural evolution of life on earth as opposed to god creating all that we see as the bible asserts over and over.jboze3131_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

"A God that can create a universe with such precision that He knows itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s going to produce rational man 14 billion years later is pretty awe inspiring if you ask me. What could be more omnipotent and omniscient than that? " Are you being sarcastic?Benjii_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

"Are you being sarcastic or idiotic?" I'm being objective. You ought to try it sometime.DaveScot_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

In fact I've got a lot of respect for theistic evolutionists. It's a perfectly consistent view IMO and fits quite well with ID. Keep in mind that ID only posits that design is detectable in nature. The inference is warranted by virtually impossible odds being routinely defeated in the production of life. Those odds can be beaten by stacking the deck 14 billion years ago and letting it play out without interference from that point onward.DaveScot_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

Are you being sarcastic or idiotic?Benjii_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply