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

Wait a minute... The Big Bang is discredited?cambion_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

PaV you need to study what Coyne says he believes. God in his philosophy is not involved in guiding evolution or nature. He denies that God is inherent within the natural world and he denies that God determines what happens in the natural world. To him the universe and everything in it is evolving or moving to greater complexity not due to the will of God but because it is the natural order. God isn't directing anything. To him and those who think like him God is some kind of abstract energy beingness, rather then an intelligent willful conscious entity. That kind of philosophy has been popular for a long time amongst many of the european and american aristocracy. It's roots lay in the middle ages and became consolidated into the doctrines of fraternal societies like the Freemasons. It's philosophical roots lay in a mixture of gnosticism, hermeticism, and Kabbalah. The people who believe and promote that viewpoint seek to use science as a weapon against theistic belief that God is a conscious person who is active in our world and in our lives. But the science they use is outdated. Evolution is discredited, the Big Bang is discredited and the second law of thermodynamics discredits their philosophy of the natural world moving towards greater complexity. They are the actual psuedo scientists. In their spastic futile flailing away at ID they reveal their own pathetic state of stale discredited sophistry and spiritual philosophical vaccuousness.mentok_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

Well, I'm not sure, Phil. At any rate, Coyne, just like Ken Miller and John Haught, believes that life can start by random chance and then build on through natural selection. Now, God, of course, has a part in this, however, his part is "behind the scenes" and "hidden". Although God plays a role, it's not scientifically detectable. So this becomes a Kantian form of blind faith. I.E, not supported by empirical data. Nonetheless, Christian theology has never equated God as some form hidden creator who's ways can't be discerned. Either God will make us know that he has worker, or randomness can do the playing. In a sense, you can't have both. This, of course, applies to random evolution. I'm not saying that it is random. There may be good reasons to think that it is teleological(Simon Conway).Benjii_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

Coyne does not represent the Catholic Church. It is the bishops in communion with the bishop of Rome that teach the faith. Pope Benedict is much more authoratative on the subject of creation (not because he is more authoratative than the Word, but because he serves the Word and his ministry is to teach and confirm it). The Jesuits have gone wacko since the sixties, most of them are heretics. If you havn't noticed yet, Christianity in the West is in a crisis. It's not at all suprising that you have folks like Coyne who are closet naturalists in clerical garb. Alas, the wheat and the chaff grow together.BK_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

jboze3131: Notice that Coyne doesn't say anything like, "Catholics believe that evolution is a theory........" He's literally not pontificating. He's giving his opinion. It has a certain standing because of his educational background and because of his position as head of the Vatican Observatory. But, it's his opinion. He's speaking as a scientist, not as a Catholic. Since you're obviously not Catholic, let me tell you what happens when a solemn feast is celebrated in the Church. The Mass begins with a procession. First incense, then a cross, then ministers, then the deacon carrying the Book of the Gospels high above his head. When the deacon gets to the altar, he places the Book of the Gospels on the altar. When the priest-celebrant arrives, he kisses the altar, and then incenses the altar--with the Book of the Gospels atop it. When it's time for the Gospel to be read, a procession forms in which lighted candles and incense precede the deacon, again with the Book of the Gospels held high, ending with the Book of the Gospels being place on the ambo (pulpit, more or less). The deacon announces the gospel, and then, yes, you guessed it, incenses the Book of the Gospel. Does the Word of God receive that kind of reverential treatment in your church? If the answer is no, then maybe it's wrong to assume that the Word of God is not important to Roman Catholics. The Bible is accepted by Christians as the inspired Word of God. And, of course, we believe that it was the Holy Spirit who first inspired the writers to write, but also inspired the listeners to listen. (Jesus: "Whoever hears you, hears me.") Catholics believe in the on-going presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church. As a matter of fact, the Holy Spirit is the very "soul" of the Church. And we believe Jesus when he says, "I will be with you (speaking to the Apostles) until the end of time." (The end of Matthew's gospel). Thus, the ultimate "teaching authority" of the Church rests in the power of the Holy Spirit. The Pope is given a share in this gift of the Holy Spirit by virtue of his role as Bishop of Rome. Rev. Coyne does not. Just compare the language of Cardinal Schoenborn and of Fr. Coyne. Cardinal Schoenborn speaks in the name of the Church; Fr. Coyne does not. Cardinal Schoenborn, through ordination as a bishop (Cardinal is another matter) also shares in the charism of "teaching authority." The Catholic position in most areas is: all things are permissible in moderation. This even applies to opinions. Even to what Fr. Coyne says. You seem to come at ID completely from a religious perspective. I don't. I come at it from a completely scientific basis, as does, for example, Dave Scott. I don't think it helpful to argue things from a "The Word of God says..." position. People are going to disagree. It will be the Protestant Reformation all over again. But, as to the Catholic Church, don't worry. It takes the Word of God very seriously, as I tried to point out above. Benjii: IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m shocked as to why so many people, such as Coyne, canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t grasp ID. I think the reason why itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s instantaneously down played is because first hand critics automatically conflate it with creationism. Asa Gray, a brilliant botanist of the 1800's, a contemporary of Darwin, and a believer (He was at Harvard when Harvard was still a seminary!) saw Darwin's theory as increasing the magnificence of God's creative power. He finally had a falling out with Darwin when he realized that Darwin did not believe that these changes in nature were guided by God's Hand. I think that that is basically Fr. Coyne's position. I'm not completely convinced that he's wrong. But in the meantime, I am quite sure that life is telling us that it was designed.PaV_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

Bill, Did you get a transcript from Cody College????? I know Michael thinks your a 'swell' guy, colleague and all. Why not share it with the chatterbugs in this 'grope'? cheatin, eh?Mirth_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

I'm shocked as to why so many people, such as Coyne, can't grasp ID. I think the reason why it's instantaneously down played is because first hand critics automatically conflate it with creationism. When they do that, they pass that around to others. Most second hand critics would say that it's just philosophy since there's no science behind it. This assessment couldn't be farther from the truth. Read 'Darwin's Black Box', 'The Design Inference', and 'No Free Lunch'. I think once critics read this, then, their whole concept will change. If not, then they're just a bunch of lazy dogmatists.Benjii_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

Well, either way...hes connected to the vatican, and it seems odd that someone connected to the vatican would adhere to such anti-biblical views.
QUESTION: What do you see as being the role for God in an evolutionary universe? FATHER COYNE: I think the role for God in an evolutionary universe is an extremely rich concept. I think the God of an evolutionary universe - a universe that has a spontaneity to it, that has a dynamism to it, that has a development to it, and an uncertainty to it - that is a much richer God to me than a God of a deterministic universe, a universe that's predetermined. Because God to me - an essential characteristic for God - is freedom and spontaneity. And I believe that a universe participating in that freedom and spontaneity is an evolutionary universe. QUESTION: How would you respond to that claim that some people make, that when they look at the universe they donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see any sign of God?
Where he gets this view, I've no idea...it certainly isn't from the Bible itself.jboze3131_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT}

Coyne doesn't represent the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has been for some time split on various issues and ideologies. The Jesuits and other orders have been at odds with the Vatican and others have other ideas. It's not Coynes view's are the views of all or even many Catholic clergy, more likely very few believe as he does. Malachi Martin has written and spoken about the various cliques and ideologies presently at play within the confines of the Catholic Church.mentok_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT}

Omega Point? That's essentially where the universe imagines weightless green pastures. Or green pastas. One of the two, anyhow. The Catholic church sure seems internally conflicted. But aren't we all?DaveScot_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT}

After reading these comments by Coyne, I'm even more worried over the state of the Catholic Church. Heck, does the Catholic Church even have any use for the Bible anymore?jboze3131_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT}

Well since I didn't know anything about Coyne until just know I did a little googlin and guess what I found: "A Symposium sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation Chaired by Martin J. Rees Council Chamber Pontifical Academy of Sciences The Vatican Rome, Italy (7, 8, and 9 November 2000) The meeting is supported in full by the John Templeton Foundation. The organizers are: John Barrow, George V. Coyne, George Ellis, Michael Heller, Martin J. Rees. A provisional agenda in four headings: 1. Physics of the universe: scenarios for the long-range future: (A) Towards asymptopia: evolution of cosmic structure, death of stars, decay of atoms, formation and evaporation of black holes, behaviour near cosmological singularities, etc. What would an eternal cosmos be like at each era between the present and the final 'omega point'? " Interesting. What we have is a convergence of Teilhard De Chardin's Omega Point philosophy (evolution of the universe to a universal apotheosis), Coyne, and Templeton. What do they all have in common? Teilhard De Chardin was a palentologist who spent his life trying to prove evolution and searching for the "missing link" between ape and man. He was infamously involved with two famous missing link frauds (piltdown man and peking man). Templeton attacks ID and supports evolution, Oyne, ands De Chardin. Coyne attacks ID and supports evolution and also has put forth in his writings and speeches the idea of the "evolving universe", essentially the same thing as Teilhard De Chardin. He also edited a publication by the Vatican Observatory called 'Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding' with an article by Tipler called "The Omega Point Theory: A Model of an Evolving God". (Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger, S.J., and George V. Coyne, S.J. (eds.),. Vatican City, Vatican Observator) They all seem to believe in and want to promote the idea presented in the Omega Point philosophy. And at the same time they want to attack people who oppose their views i.e ID, by attack I mean spend lots of money to try and convince the public that ID is wrong. So the big question is...why? Why do they feel it is important to fight in the court of public opinion that the omega point doctrine is true and God is not directly controlling the universe and everything in it? What I wonder is why they feel it is important to actually put energy into trying to discredit ID. Here's a thought. They have a kind of vision of God where God is a kind of collective unconsciousness who is not an omniscient omnipresent entity. From Coyne: "But, if we confront what we know of our origins scientifically with religious faith in God the Creator Ã¢â‚¬â€œ if, that is, we take the results of modern science seriously Ã¢â‚¬â€œ it is difficult to believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient in the sense of many of the scholastic philosophers. For the believer, science tells us of a God who must be very different from God as seen by them." "God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity. God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution." God in their vision is some kind of impersonal force of nature or impersonal supernatural force which "loves" in some abstract fashion, like how "the womb loves the child". Essentially they want to remove the conception of morality based on fear. In other words most religions teach that God will punish you if you "sin" in some way. God is not only the provider of life but also the Law. If you take God out as an active participant on Earth and our lives then you remove the fear of sinning. If God isn't aware and just some kind of Force then that means you shouldn't be afraid of sinning. You can be immoral and God is impotent to punish you. This is the kind of philosophy which is greatly admired by tyrants who need a religious ideology to suit their own purposes. If God doesn't punish because he doesn't involve himself directly with us, but is just some kind of loving force, and if evolution is actually the plan of that loving force, then if we aid evolution...we do good. Hmmm...How do we aid evolution? I know!! Let's support eugenics, genocide, slavery, exploitation of inferior races, malthusian concepts of aiding the destruction of the less evolved people. Bingo!!! Ya see it's alright that the white rich guy in his castle in Europe exploits third world countries by empowering dictators. It's alright if a genocide in Rwanda or Congo or Sudan or West Africa takes place. In fact it's a good thing and we should help them. It aids evolution in ridding the world of less evolved people. The first humans according to evolution were black people. Therefore they are the least evolved and the least wanted. We should do everything possible to aid "God" in evolving humanity to the "omega point" the apotheosis of evolution. Where we all become Godlike. Don't worry about "love your brother" or "the meek shall inherit the earth". God can't see you, God's just an impersonal force of love. You can do what you like. God won't punish you. These people are not Christians. They are fakes using Christianity for their own agenda. Their philosophy was quite popular from the 17th to the 19th century. The whole "occult revival" period of the late 19th century was greatly influenced by the the same kind of thinking. It's essentially Rosicrucian dogma. Modernized.mentok_{November 18, 2005
November
11
Nov
18
18
2005
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT}

was my summary of the theory close? or did i get confused by that article? im all for immaterial worlds...ive no doubt they exist. as does an afterlife and such. but in the form described in that link? not all that clear as to what it says exactly, but the part i did understand and scanned thru sounded totally whacky.jboze3131_{November 18, 2005
November
11
Nov
18
18
2005
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT}

FYI, Frank Tipler is a signatory of "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" and a society fellow at iscid. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=443crandaddy_{November 18, 2005
November
11
Nov
18
18
2005
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT}

oh wow. the theory in that link is beyond scary. i skimmed thru it, but a computer system of sorts that will recreate all humans via storing their natures somehow. i dunno. too insane for me!jboze3131_{November 18, 2005
November
11
Nov
18
18
2005
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT}

Are they hidden disciples of Teilhard de Chardin and his omega point philosophy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Pointmentok_{November 18, 2005
November
11
Nov
18
18
2005
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT}

I'm not bashing anything or anyone really...I'm just saying that it disturbs me when Christians turn away from the word of God and try to put a traditional position over it. I've no doubt that many Catholics out there would see these attacks on ID and even a creative God and be fine with them, merely because they came out of the Vatican, and even tho they go against what the Bible teaches of God and how he acted in the universe. Trashing the Bible, and saying...accept this teaching because it comes straight from the Church Hierarchy is mind boggling to me. Of course the Bible teaches of a designer God (you can hardly argue the Bible even implies that God never designed it all and just set into motion some laws- that's a deist God which is so far from the God of the Bible it's creepy that it would come from anyone even related to the Vatican.) Tho, that's the big problem...Too many Catholics, it seems, too often throw out the Bible in order to follow what the Church (with a big 'C') teaches, no matter how anti-biblical it is.jboze3131_{November 18, 2005
November
11
Nov
18
18
2005
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT}

Josh is just outlining the general protestant position; don't see how that can offend too much.anteater_{November 18, 2005
November
11
Nov
18
18
2005
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT}

Careful, Josh. Don't stray too far into theological matters, or you might really offend someone.crandaddy_{November 18, 2005
November
11
Nov
18
18
2005
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT}

Even worse, in my mind, is the fact that it DOES all boil down to the Pope's position. Sorry, but I don't care what the pope (a position not established in the Bible) says, I care about what the word says. And I don't understand why most Catholics, it seems, think that what the Pope (and the lower hierarchy) says IS more important than what the Bible says. Sadly, the Catholic Church seems to put too much importance in what a man says as opposed to the Word. Top Vatican scientists saying these sorts of things...it cannot be helping the overall Christian church in general. Doing, it seems, all you can to destroy the word of God to prop up a hierarchy that is anything but biblical seems to be the worst of ideas in this matter.jboze3131_{November 18, 2005
November
11
Nov
18
18
2005
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT}

Ultimately, it all boils down to the Pope's position on the matter, and to the best of my knowledge, the evidence suggests that he concurs with Schoenborn. Davidcrandaddy_{November 18, 2005
November
11
Nov
18
18
2005
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT}

I wouldn't confuse the Rev. George Coyne's opinion with official Church teaching. When he give his opinion---that's what it remains: his opinion. When Cardinal Schoenborn speaks, that is much more authoritative (even though he might not have the same level of scientific training).PaV_{November 18, 2005
November
11
Nov
18
18
2005
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT}

the catholic church is doing a lot of damage with absurd anti-biblical statements such as this (and then claiming that theyre on the side of the bible!):
"If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly." Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent. "God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity," he wrote. "He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves."
the bible says exactly the opposite of what coyne claims here. im rather confused as to how on earth the catholic church itself continues to even call itselt christian when it throws out the very idea of a designer God! has coyne not read Genesis? of course the bible makes it quite clear that God is, indeed, a designer God and a creator God. not a God of trial and error.jboze3131_{November 18, 2005
November
11
Nov
18
18
2005
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT}

And next, they'll say that abortion isn't really so bad. What is happening to the Catholic Church?wheadgib_{November 18, 2005
November
11
Nov
18
18
2005
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply