My review of Christoph, Cardinal Schoenborn’s attempt to tiptoe around the intelligent design controversy

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 4, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

His attempt to tiptoe is better known as his book, Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution, and a Rational Faith (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2007).

Tiptoeing won’t work, actually. The ID guys don’t really care what he says because Darwinism and materialism are toast so burnt that even a miracle couldn’t revive them, not that any miracle worker would bother, of course. But the Darwinists/materialists are accustomed to demanding total surrender from everyone for no particular reason, and I guess it becomes a habit or something. Anyway:

Introduction Christoph Cardinal Schoenborn’s Chance or Purpose? Flickering light on the ID controversy at best

Part One: Is the proposed distinction between evolution and “evolutionism” legitimate in today’s environment? (Of course not.)

Part Two: Why is it called “intelligent design” instead of “intelligent intervention”? (Because design is essential and intervention is optional.)

Part Three: What Cardinal Schoenborn doesn’t like about intelligent design (The ID guys talk as though cells operate like machines or something. News flash!: They do. )

Part Four: Can the disgraced Teilhard de Chardin evolve into a pioneer of faith? (But people just wouldn’t get Christ the “evolutor” at my parish, no matter who said it.)

Part Five: Darwin’s ladder knocking over Jacob’s ladder? (Well, that’s the idea anyway, and it won’t be the Darwinists’ fault if it never happens.)

Excerpt:

In marked contrast to the straightforward style of his “no-dhimmis-for-Darwin!” op-ed, Schoenborn’s book is very careful not to say much – without taking it back later. One gets the distinct impression that at least two different people wrote the book – one saying “look, this materialist nonsense is just not compatible with the Catholic faith” and the other saying “no, but, we need to placate the high profile Catholic Darwinists – can we just massage this a bit …”

Comments

Poachy: I'm not saying ID proponents can't tell grand ID metanarratives. But given the diversity of views within the ID community, there is no one metanarrative that holds sway. Minimally, what holds the community togethers is a critique of materialist evolution and a positive program for understanding design detection and information transfer. Frost122585: You're right that "idealist" is too simple a designation for Kant. I was not so much concerned with Kant himself as in how he is taken over uncriticially (pun intended) by some of the neo-Thomists and critical realists. Can we have scientific knowledge of design in nature? Everything turns on this question.William Dembski_{June 6, 2008
June
06
Jun
6
06
2008
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

There is no grand ID metanarrative. Far be it for me to disagree with a leader in the field, but "In the beginning was the Word" is about as meta as I think you can get.poachy_{June 6, 2008
June
06
Jun
6
06
2008
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

BarryA: Thanks for taking time out. I have actually read Etienne Gilson's book, "From Aristotle to Darwin and Back," and, as it turns out, I had also read the articles that you allude to. My objections come from having already aquainted myself with Oakes. It is not at all clear to me that St. Thomas' world view rules out intelligent design. Quite the contrary, the two ideas seem quite compatible to me. Gilson points out that St. Thomas believed that God {A} created all beings in their finished form, which is about as far from Darwin as you can get. If he believed that, there is no reason to assert that he would not have accepted the notion that {B} God designed a DNA molecule. Father Oakes or one of his disciples needs to explain why {A} is compatible with a Thomistic account of Divine causality while {B} is incompatible with it. Do you see my problem here? Further, I see no reason to believe, as Fr Oakes claims, that ID scientists "confuse" or "conflate" primary and secondary causes. What evidence is there that Dembski or Meyer or any other ID scientist is unaware of this very simple distinction or incapable of applying it. I have read Dembski and Meyer and find no such misapprehensions. One might as well suggest that they cannot reason in the abstract, a flaw that is much more likely to emerge from the TE camp than from the ID camp. For what it is worth, Gilson was more sypathetic to Bishop Berkely than Darwin, so I don't know why Oakes, who I gather is a Christian Darwinist, uses this reference to elevate Darwinism over intelligent design.StephenB_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT}

Thank you for your gracious reply at 24 Bill. Very elegant. I fully understand what you wrote. However the part about describing Kant as an idealist- I know that Kant is usually, even overwhelmingly referred to as an idealist by the mainstream but to me Kant's goal was, as you so eloquently put it, to show the parameters of a naturalistic and or materialistic world view by arguing for rational parameters to reason hence separating the physical from the metaphysical and it was a synthesis of the meta-physical and the physical that I thought the COPR was about. When Gödel referred to idealism as in the ideality of time he was referring to something that is an illusion but by illusion I am not sure if he means a false construct of the mind or a possibly true one that cant be verified yet can be misleading or falsified in certain cases. Kant seemed to fully respect the world that exists outside the mind. That is he looked at math as describing things both empirically and conceptually that both had "reality", but that outside of the mind there was an "objective reality" which can and does validate or negates mathematical perceptions. That is Kant saw both by thought they needed to be understood together. That to me though is not idealism. Gödel it seems looked at idealism as a sort of false construct- even the opposite of a philosophically critical world view such as Kant's. While Gödel was a self declared Platonist, that is he thought math existed not simply in the mind and in nature but in an third domain,- Kant seemed to “inductively” respect and acknowledge numbers and math as the product of or an element or ornament of both physical reality and mind- but not as a existing in a separate third realm that is some how privileged and or individual of the mind and physical reality. [For the record the reason I use Gödel in the same breath as Kant is because his incompleteness is and was to him a verification of the Platonist reality of mind and the theorem is on one of the few gems we have manifestly exemplifying and revealing this truth.} I have quoted this before from The Critique but I find it useful to do it again...
"The empiricist will never allow himself to accept any epoch of nature for the first--the absolutely primal state; he will not believe that there can be limits to his outlook into her wide domains, nor pass from the objects of nature, which he can satisfactorily explain by means of observation and mathematical thought--which he can determine synthetically in intuition, to those which neither sense nor imagination can ever present in concreto; he will not concede the existence of a faculty in nature, operating independently of the laws of nature--a concession which would introduce uncertainty into the procedure of the understanding, which is guided by necessary laws to the observation of phenomena; nor, finally, will he permit himself to seek a cause beyond nature, inasmuch as we know nothing but it, and from it alone receive an objective basis for all our conceptions and instruction in the unvarying laws of things. In truth, if the empirical philosopher had no other purpose in the establishment of his antithesis than to check the presumption of a reason which mistakes its true destination, which boasts of its insight and its knowledge, just where all insight and knowledge cease to exist, and regards that which is valid only in relation to a practical interest, as an advancement of the speculative interests of the mind (in order, when it is convenient for itself, to break the thread of our physical investigations, and, under pretence of extending our cognition, connect them with transcendental ideas, by means of which we really know only that we know nothing)--if, I say, the empiricist rested satisfied with this benefit, the principle advanced by him would be a maxim recommending moderation in the pretensions of reason and modesty in its affirmations, and at the same time would direct us to the right mode of extending the province of the understanding, by the help of the only true teacher, experience. In obedience to this advice, intellectual hypotheses and faith would not be called in aid of our practical interests; nor should we introduce them under the pompous titles of science and insight. For speculative cognition cannot find an objective basis any other where than in experience; and, when we overstep its limits our synthesis, which requires ever new cognitions independent of experience, has no substratum of intuition upon which to build. But if--as often happens--empiricism, in relation to ideas, becomes itself dogmatic and boldly denies that which is above the sphere of its phenomenal cognition, it falls itself into the error of intemperance--an error which is here all the more reprehensible, as thereby the practical interest of reason receives an irreparable injury. And this constitutes the opposition between Epicureanism* and Platonism."
So there it is in a nut shell. Kant respected both Platonism and Empiricism (which I think he means by Epicureanism). I don't find that idealist- I thinks it's very realist. Out of curiosity Bill, are you more Kantian or Platonist regarding mathematical reality? I am more Kantian but regarding reasoning, rationality, concepts and such I am very Platonist. I think the mind is more than machine- even Kantian philosophy can’t contain it. Mind to me owes its spark to spirit or "spiritualism" which for me resides beyond both mind and matter. Also, I would love to say that your use of NFLs to critique unguided evolution is something I had a natural intuition of in 9th grade when I was first shown Darwin's full theory and his tree of life. It wasn't a developed intuition but just a generalized sense that for example I thought "where does the good stuff come from?" and "why is it so manifestly organized and functional (almost self perpetuating), and symmetrical?" As far as symmetry I think Paley’s arguments still have a real kick to them- I knew that natural selection didn't give you anything new and the random mutations part just seemed like a non-answer to me or a big "WE DONT KNOW" passing for a purely scientific, exhaustively explanatory, truthful fact of nature. Basically, I'm definitely one of your fans. Hope you will do a post some time again regarding the latest on the NFLs and how they are currently being used evolutionarily and or other wise. NFLs really take math and metaphysics and test how they align and stack up against perceived materialistic interpretations and theories of reality. Very important and very great stuff. Once again Bill thanks for responding to my post :) Your fellow uncommon dissenter, Frost, Christmas of 85.Frost122585_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT}

In case readers don't want to hash through both lengthy articles to get to where Oakes trashes ID, here's the key passage: Q: What are your objections to the Intelligent Design movement? Father Oakes: Primarily that ID advocates seem regularly to confuse finality with design. Now because people only design things for a purpose, the two concepts are too often conflated. But they are different. I think the great medievalist Etienne Gilson got the distinction exactly right in his book "From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again: A Journey in Final Causality, Species, and Evolution." Here's what he says on pages 9 and 10 of the book: "Aristotle conceives the [designing] artist as a particular case of nature [the realm of finality]. This is why, in his natural philosophy, art imitates nature, rather than nature imitating art. The contrary is imagined because -- every man being more or less an artist, an artisan, and a technician -- we know, more or less confusedly, yet with certitude, the manner in which art operates. "But insofar as we are natural beings, we are the products of innumerable biological activities of which we know practically nothing, or very little. The manner in which nature operates escapes us. Her finality is spontaneous, not learned. … "In nature the end, the 'telos,' works as every artist would wish to be able to work; in fact, as the greatest among them do work, or even as the others work in moments of grace when, suddenly masters of their media, they work with the rapidity and infallible sureness of nature. "Such is Mozart, composing a quartet in his head while writing down its predecessor. Such is Delacroix, painting in twenty minutes the headpiece and mantle of Jacob on the wall of Saint-Sulpice. "A technician, an artist, who worked with the sureness of a spider weaving its web or a bird making its nest would be a more perfect artist than any of those that anyone has ever seen. Such is not the case. "The most powerful and the most productive artists only summon from afar the ever-ready forces of nature which fashion the tree and, through the tree, the fruit. That is why Aristotle says that there is more purposefulness [in Aristotle's Greek 'to hou heneka'], more good, and more beauty, in the works of nature than in those of art." I quote this passage at such length not only to show how design piggybacks on nature but also to hint at how design can gum things up. Think of Hamlet, whose tortured conscience led him to do the wrong thing at almost each step of the way after he heard of his father's murder. I also object to the way the ID Movement conflates the Thomistic distinction between primary and secondary causality. The advocates of this movement claim that if it can be proved scientifically that God must intervene on occasion to get various species up and running, then this will throw the atheist Darwinians into a panicked rout. I disagree. My view is that, according to St. Thomas, secondary causality can be allowed full rein without threatening God's providential oversight of the world.BarryA_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT}

StephenB, Ed Oakes lays it all out in these two articles: http://www.zenit.org/article-13684?l=english http://www.zenit.org/article-13696?l=englishBarryA_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT}

DHL at 30- if I said inane it would mean the same thing. Also I’m not attacking an entire group of people or a well developed theory per se' but a factually ignorant statement that both I and Bill corrected from different angles. Some things said in this world are just plain idiotic which is why the word exists and partially why it gets so much use laziness is another reason- one that I was guilty of. However I don’t need to resort to "just" a name calling game to make my point. The rest of post handled that. Though you are right in the sense that I did not need to use that word and am better off taking the higher ground. Thank you.Frost122585_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

Dr. Dembski, I know that you don't conduct clinics on this site, so I understand if you don't have time to answer a question. However, I am still waiting for Fr. Heller to explain what he means when he says that ID scientists confuse design with final causality. Or what Edward Oakes means when he claims that ID scientists, don't understand the notion of Divine causality. Clearly, this is not that case as is evident to anyone who has read your books. The reason I bring it up is because I suspect that both of these men may be casualties of that school of thought that you alluded to---the one which tries to merge Kantian idealism with Thomistic realism. Do you have any idea what they are talking about? Where do they get these notions?StephenB_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

Frost122585 at 23 Per your:
“the least philosophically literate” is to me idiotic. . . .or they just use ad hominem tactics
Why should your statement not be considered an ad hominem rant?DLH_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

The problem is that the design argument could not establish that this architect was also a creator God who gave being to the world. How is that different from yours?tribune7_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT}

fbeckwith at 23 Thanks for your thoughtful insightful comments. I would welcome your further exploring some of the issues of presuppositions and ways of knowing. You note: "What I mean be “philosophical ignorance” has to do with the role of presuppositions on questions of science that influence one’s view of knowledge." I have read comments that the increased biblical literacy from printing the bible, the expulsion of Jews from Spain who then tutored Europe in Hebrew, and the Protestant Reformation, led to an appreciation of God as lawgiver. That led to searching for laws in the book of nature. That in turn launched the scientific revolution. Now we have atheists appealing to the "enlightenment" and militantly objecting to any reference to any deity, and enforcing materialistic presuppositions as essential to science. I would welcome your comments or references to read further across this range of presuppositions. You note:
If one, for example, believes that knowledge of immaterial realities is an inference from the senses, as someone like Locke argued, then the game is over.
What of recognizing intelligent design among humans, and thence identifying design in biotic systems? e.g., by Dembski's Explanatory Filter, or by the common recognition of design by reverse engineering. Does recognizing intelligent design among humans go beyond an empirical inference from the senses and necessarily involve revelation?DLH_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

fbeckwith, I think you are seeing seeing philosophical assumptions where they aren't.tribune7_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

-----fbeckwith: The problem with the ID approach, as I think the Cardinal sees it, is that it is nominalist and empiricist in its assumptions. It is, in a word, epistemologically and metaphysically Protestant. Perhaps this would be a good time to ask about you about your understanding of nominalism. Let me give you a head start in an obscenely simplistic fashion. For me, the term implies that when our mind takes hold of a thing outside the mind, the image produced in the mind does not really reflect the thing at all. In other words, there is no correspondence between our rational minds and the rational universe. Put another way, we don’t really perceive reality, we simply create categories or “names” of things in our mind. With such a mind set, design can only be an illusion. Does that sound like ID to you? -----“It is no coincidence that the only Catholics who are pro-ID are the most philosophically illiterate, and the Protestant philosophers who are the most pro-ID are the least Thomistic in their philosophy of nature.” Well, I am a Catholic IDer and I have studied philosophy at the graduate level. Of course, I am just a humble blogger. Would you call George Weigel, biographer of Pope John Paul II, philosophically illiterate? How about the late William F. Buckley, who was a fierce ID advocate? Or, if you like the clergy, try Father Thomas Dubay, author of “The Evidential Power of Beauty.” Not every Catholic is like Ken Miller, Fr. Edward Oakes, or Fr. Thomas Heller. In any case, I would like to know how St. Thomas, who tried to prove the existence of God through a design argument, could be anti-Intelligent Design. Believe me, I will not pounce on the explanation. I am a sucker for a good argument, and I will entertain anything that is half way rational.StephenB_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

fbeckwith, "If one, for example, believes that knowledge of immaterial realities is an inference from the senses, as someone like Locke argued, then the game is over." Could you expand on that at all? Or even point me at a resource that expands on that?nullasalus_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

Frost122585: One of Kant's big deals was to identify constraints on reason that allow us to have knowledge of nature (this knowledge, in Kant's case, being Newtonian physics). Nature, for Kant, did not simply reveal itself. Rather, nature handed us phenomena, which our intellects then had to synthesize. But the synthesis for Kant took the form of a mechanistic physics (Newtonian mechanics). When neo-Thomists (e.g., Lonergan) try to merge classical Thomism (which is realist) with Kantian philosophy (which is idealist), invariably reality gives way to the conditions that our intellect imposes on it. These conditions typically leave no room for design and thus leave a materialist science untouched. Kantian neo-Thomists are to philosophy what theistic evolutionists are to theology. They relegate design to a sphere (e.g., metaphysics) where it has no scientific traction. By the way, Kant actually did like the design argument. He thought of design as a regulative principle that needed to guide our intellects and, in his First Critique, argued that it could successfully establish that an architect of some sort had designed the world. The problem is that the design argument could not establish that this architect was also a creator God who gave being to the world.William Dembski_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

I've thought long and hard about these issues, years before I had become Catholic. Of course, one's Christian communion is irrelevant to the quality of one's case, which is what I often read from Denyse and Bill about themselves when such comments are leveled against them by Barbara Forrest and her ilk. My point was to defend the Cardinal, since I think he is operating with a different philosophical grammar than what operates in ID circles, which tends to be heavily influenced by the analytic tradition, which tends to see "science" as the model by which philosophy ought to be practiced. This, I believe, reinforces an empiricist understanding of knowledge that limits the scope of our critique of materialism. What I mean be "philosophical ignorance" has to do with the role of presuppositions on questions of science that influence one's view of knowledge. If one, for example, believes that knowledge of immaterial realities is an inference from the senses, as someone like Locke argued, then the game is over. This is why I am deeply uneasy about Behe's project more so than what Denyse has done with the mind-body problem. Remember that Thomas' design argument--one of the five ways--cannot be divorced from his epistemology, which has to do with the intellect's ability to have awareness of final causes that is not merely an inference from sense experience. This is why it is wrong to invoke Thomas as a sort of paleo-IDer.fbeckwith_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

While I am here, what business had Tom Riddle to describe my reaction as “knee-jerk”? Every business in the world - by making the comments you do, and by putting it in a blog with an open submission, you invite public debate. But, why are you assuming that I am calling your reaction knee-jerk. I never said you were making a knee jerk reaction. I really was thinking about high profile evangelical leaders who, unlike leaders in the Catholic church, are very quick to give opinions on things. Also, the fact that you thought about it 4 months really means nothing. Thats because you speak for yourself - you do not speak for the entire Roman Catholic Church. That is a much greater responsibility than just about anyone can handle. So, if I were speaking for the entire RC Church, I too would move slowly on things I wasn't 99% certain of. And, speaking of knee jerk reaction: as atheist religion prof Hector Avalos drove out gifted Christian astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez. thats one right there. Would you want the RC Church to come out and say that Avolos drove out Gonzalez? While I think GG was unfairly treated, its not as clear cut as what you make of it. His publication record at Iowa was less than stunnning, and his grants were pathetic for an R1 research university. I agree that Iowa wanted him out, but he did not help his case. Now, I don't bring this up to restart the GG argument, but to stress that as a blogger you are free to accuse Iowa of wrongdoing. But, if you represent the RC Church, you better damn well have your facts straight, and the reality is, the GG issue is more complex due to his grants and publications. And, that is the reason why the Cardinal treaded lightly. He knows he doesn't have ALL the facts yet, and as a representative of the RC Church, he wants to make sure he represents all the facts correctly.TomRiddle_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

fbeckwith, To claim that the catholic advocates of ID are "the least philosophically literate" is to me idiotic. The main reason is that 99% of all critiques of ID either fail to correctly define the theory or they just use ad hominem tactics (i.e. illiterate). Most people (myself included) who are advocates of ID are plenty comfortable debating it on its own merits in any philosophical debate or forum- the reason is that we are very philosophically literate. I just happen to be raised a Catholic btw, and while I don’t find your generalization the least bit offensive I call you out on the integrity truthfulness of your premises. Don’t try and use statistical arguments such as “most philosophy teachers polled don’t accept ID” because they fall under the ignorant category of the classical “fallacy by authority”- which you would know if you understood and appreciated logic. Credentials don’t make you philosophically literate- being able to defend and support your view through an intellectually honest argument does. Btw, I don’t really practice that much, but you are calling the kettle black invoking Thomas incorrectly to criticize Catholic’s philosophical ignorance and it‘s correlation with ID. You should reconsider your false premises and conclusion on the merits of your argument and this one waged against you- just incidentally by a Catholic.Frost122585_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

Bill could you elaborate a little on the Thomism and it's synthetic connection to Kant? I have read a lot of Kant and while he viewed evidence for (or against) God's existence to be impossible, I don't see how Kantian dynamics would exclude design from being the prime descriptive domain of elements (or all) of nature. I have heard that Kant argued against design but I don’t remember it in The Critique of Pure Reason. This is for me an absolutely fascinating topic of discussion as I greatly appreciate Kant's contributions - Einstein in Kaku's book "Einstein's Universe", was said to have finished reading The Critique at age 14. Gödel also found it helpful concerning issues of transcendentalism and If I gather it correctly Gödel viewed Kantian philosophy as a type of Phenomenology (Gödel was partial to Husserl’s phenomenological view of reality). Hope you will elaborate on this a bit Bill-Frost122585_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

Frank: As one philosopher to another, explain how ID is wedded to a nominalist and empiricist epistemology. I have some sophistication here. I've argued in my books that ID proponents can be realists or antirealists about science. I've argued that ID is not an interventionist theory. There is no grand ID metanarrative. The only thing ID is committed to is the inadequacy of evolutionary mechanisms as conceived in Enlightenment terms (thus mounting a fundamental critique of Enlightenment assumptions) and the detectability of design in nature. How design got into nature could be perfectly compatible with secondary causes and thus in line with classic Thomism (though I'm not so sure about contemporary neo-Thomistic attempts to find some common ground with Kant). Indeed, I'm surprised you invoke Thomas. He was definitely on the ID side. He was even a 24-hour 6-day creationist who believed that God, as a primary cause, formed the human body directly apart from any mediation (thus in contradiction to any form of evolution). Frank, you are sounding like a company man who, in joining the new company (RCC), is forgetting your roots. I expect your newfound RCC friends have a lot of negative things to say about ID. To what extent have they swayed you?William Dembski_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

I really think that the separation between evolution and "evolutionism" is best exemplified by the theistic evolutionist, or the "by law" community. This community, for the most part, rejects any association with ID, though I personally see this as an ID position. The TE view is certainly compatible with Catholic doctrine. Is it possible that God arranged for the big bang, either by arranging for an infinite variety of big bangs (multiverse) or by arranging for one finely tuned big bang -- ours? Is it possible that God arranged for a system of laws, some of which science has discovered? Is it possible that once God did this, he needed to do nothing but wait until the laws played out to produce an intelligent creature? Is it then possible that he chose to begin an interaction with this intelligent creature, even an interaction that required the sacrefice of his son? If the above is possible, if there is a significant community of Catholic scientists that believe that exactly this did happen, and if this community of scientists cannot tolerate the ID title (though I don't understand why not, who says ID requires multiple ID events, just one is required) then this community accepts evolution but rejects "evolutionism" -- abject, atheistic naturalism. I find it quite reasonable for Cardinal Schoenborn to respect this community when writing his book.bFast_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

Denyse, Thank you. I think "what evolution means today for all practical purposes for most lay people is" is right on target. This is what I see as the greatest difficulty in this debate. Fbeckwith, Francis Beckwith, I presume? If so, I believe I've seen some of your writings before. Pleasure to see you here. But I want to take issue with a claims of yours: I don't think pro-ID Catholics are 'philosophically illiterate', even mostly. I think the issues ID raises are complicated, as is the treatment of evolution by others. I personally have doubts about whether design can be demonstrated scientifically (in a falsifiable way) - but I also agree with Denyse that 'evolution' was a corrupted thought long before ID arrived on the scene. It is shot through with philosophical assumptions and metaphysical goals as desired by many proponents. In other words, I'm probably close to your intellectual stance - but I don't think it's as cut and dry as you seem to argue. I wish all sides would relax and realize the prime problem with evolution is not the mechanisms or any of the actual 'science', but the social and philosophical warping that is so often attached to it. To defeat that IS to effectively defeat evolution for many people - the moment natural science is divorced from philosophy, metaphysics, and social/political aims is the moment the problems we see are solved.nullasalus_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

fbeckworth -- It is no coincidence that the only Catholics who are pro-ID are the most philosophically illiterate With respect, how does febeckworth define ID?tribune7_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

Frank, At the end of the day, the Cardinal did not make any strong or important response to the Darwinian materialism he admits to be a problem, and that saddens me. It is no good omen for the Catholic Church if those drawing on other traditions are better able to resist it, as your comments imply. You also write, "I think you have to restrain yourself a bit from the crusade motif on these matters. There are many of us who are in the middle on these questions and think they are worth discussing. But when people like you act as if some of us are committing some kind of heresy because we will not acquiesce hook-line and sinker to every jot and tittle of the DI-narrative, we begin to wonder whether you are truly serious about academic freedom and the call for mutual respect and dialog." Let me be quite clear about this: The rapidity with which the issues are developing - for example, the way in which atheist religion professor Hector Avalos was permitted to harass astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez (and the subsequent tenure denial) - delivers me from the least concern about where those "in the middle" stand. They don't stand anywhere. They don't matter.O'Leary_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

Denyse: The Church has addressed the question of materialism ad infinitum ad nauseum. The problem is that it refuses to use the language of Enlightenment science. It refuses to acquiesce to the categories in which "science" is the only way of knowing. The problem with the ID approach, as I think the Cardinal sees it, is that it is nominalist and empiricist in its assumptions. It is, in a word, epistemologically and metaphysically Protestant. It is no coincidence that the only Catholics who are pro-ID are the most philosophically illiterate, and the Protestant philosophers who are the most pro-ID are the least Thomistic in their philosophy of nature. Although I continue to maintain that ID advocates raise important questions about the nature of science and whether science should presuppose naturalism (namely, the view that all that exists is the material universe and that there is no mind, such as God, behind it), I have doubts about ID’s answers and whether these answers can offer an attractive alternative to the inadequacies of the Enlightenment for the rationality of religious belief. I think you have to restrain yourself a bit from the crusade motif on these matters. There are many of us who are in the middle on these questions and think they are worth discussing. But when people like you act as if some of us are committing some kind of heresy because we will not acquiesce hook-line and sinker to every jot and tittle of the DI-narrative, we begin to wonder whether you are truly serious about academic freedom and the call for mutual respect and dialog.fbeckwith_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

Denyse OK, we know (and knew) your views on evolution / materialism. But I am interested to hear your views on why the Catholic Church (or this book, at least) is failing to take the stance you would like it (her?) to. Off the topic of this post, I'd also be interested to hear why you're a Catholic (none of my business, of course - ignore me at your leisure). In my opinion the altar of St Guess is even less persuasive than the altar of St Fluke.duncan_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

nullasalus, what evolution means today for all practical purposes for most lay people is evolutionary psychobabble bolstered by claims about the history of life that are largely exploded by new science findings - but assent to which is demanded as the price of advancement. The rules of our society are increasingly constructed by an elite for whom the evopsychobabble is a gospel - the Gospel According to St. Fluke. My disappointment with the Cardinal's Chance or Purpose? book stems from its unwillingness to confront our actual contemporary problem: At the very moment when the inner life of the cell has made confetti of all materialist theories of life, evopsychobabble rules the academy and so the purveyors of nonsense drive out true scholars - as atheist religion prof Hector Avalos drove out gifted Christian astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez. That, by the way, was an iconic moment. Science mattered little; what mattered was preserving the superstition of the tax-supported elite. If His Eminence has no message for these times, then very well, he has no message. It's just too bad that he wrote a book implying that he did have a message - when it appears that he only wanted to signal Catholic Darwinists that they can glorify Darwin in peace at conferences sponsored by the Vatican, assured that they have nothing to fear from the Church demanding that the evidence for their views be set forth in detail, with contrary evidence allowed. While I am here, what business had Tom Riddle to describe my reaction as "knee-jerk"? I spent four months thinking about how to explain what I know I must finally say gently enough that I could not be justifiably accused of far more disrespect than either is fitting or than I intend. Finally, either the Church addresses the danger that any lay person faces who confronts the bankruptcy of materialist theories of origins or she stands justifiably accused of siding with the materialist elite. She can take as long as she wishes to make a decision but she cannot prevent reasonable people from drawing conclusions in the meantime about what to expect from her in the present day.O'Leary_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Denyse, Sorry if I'm belaboring this, but I really want to understand what you're saying. Do you mean that the word/concept 'evolution' itself has so much baggage attached to it - including philosophical notions, endorsements of questionable (to say the least) 'science' like evolutionary psychology, etc - that trying to distinguish between evolution (as in processes of mutation, neutral drift, selection, etc) and 'evolutionism' (Apes are our brothers! Selfish genes are all that matter! Materialism!) is a hopeless cause? I really do think the cardinal is being too delicate with the topic - but I also think he doesn't want to involve the Church in a science dispute. Philosophy (and naturally, theology) is fair game, however. Still, I'd admit the subject is complicated to say the least.nullasalus_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

duncan, simply because "they simply don't know". They have made a stand on "purposeless" WRT evolution. But, nobody really knows how it works, and there is good evidence for common descent, so they are treading lightly. When you don't know something for sure, its best to say "we don't know". Rude: you did just as I said. You linked Darwin to eugenics, fascism, and communism. That was knee-jerk. The Catholic Church cannot go off half-cocked and make those links. Its not that cut-and-dry. It seems you are looking for a Pope who wants to run his own blog and make pronouncements whenever he has an opinion. Prudence says "wait". I think it is a smart move. However, that being said, waiting also has its drawbacks, as you can wind up being the last to the party. That is just the price you pay for the kind of structure the Catholic church holds to. I'm curious (and I really don't know the answer to this, so I'm not fishing): did the Catholic church have white and black water fountains and bathrooms in the 1950s? I'm not sure, but I'd be willing to bet that they did not. Whereas, other organizations have had to backtrack on impulsive moves. And by other organizations, I don't just mean churches, but even our own government and businesses.TomRiddle_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

So why do you think the Catholic Church is treading this equivocal political path? It can’t be because they want to please everyone – they’ve never been shy of not doing that. Hence their stand on abortion, homosexuality, extra-marital sex, and the lie that the HIV virus can pass through condoms. Why aren’t they saying “Hey, dude, the Church doesn’t support it”?duncan_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply