The Catholic Church: And two and one half understandings of ID

Phil P – Thank you for posting. I am glad we can continue this dialogue.

I’ll post this exchange on my apologetics site. Thanks for the reply.

Link please. I’m glad I could help you generate content at your website, but I’m still waiting for answers to my specific and explicit questions about what Ratzinger and the ITC have said about, “the nub…involves scientific observation…concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology.”

The Pope indeed supports “intelligent design” in the lower-case form,

What is your distinction between lower-case id and upper-case ID? I’m curious… I’ve been in conversations where “upper-case ID” means the designer is God, while lower-case or “mini-id” is more modest and only infers intelligence causation.

and other portions of his writings support evolution.

I am also a Catholic intelligent design evolutionist, just like Benedict.

We are explicit who that Designer is. This is a philosophical or theological issue, not a scientific one.

Yes, in saying "who" you mean identity, and the identity of the intelligent cause is a philosophical or theological issue. But whether the universe is designed or not can be shown through observable scientific evidence. As the ITC said: “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.” [emphasis added] Inquisitive Brain

Inq Brain, I'll post this exchange on my apologetics site. Thanks for the reply. The Pope indeed supports "intelligent design" in the lower-case form, and other portions of his writings support evolution. We are explicit who that Designer is. This is a philosophical or theological issue, not a scientific one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church Phil P PhilVaz

Phil P - Thank you for the reply. Apologies for the delay in my response to your reply; tailgating and college football are of a higher priority than typing up comments on blogs. (No offense intended, Bill and Denyse, and friends.) It is nice to dialogue with someone who is reasonable and willing to listen to what others have to say. These attributes can be rare in the ID debate. Apologies for the length of this reply. Because of the huge amounts of bias and conflation that float around (especially in the mainstream media), there are many distinctions that must be drawn out in order to render an accurate analysis of the ITC document and Ratzinger’s position on ID. I am relieved to hear that you have read Communion and Stewardship, but I am also partially distressed at the same time. From what you have disclosed thus far, it seems to me that you may have misinterpreted this issue on two levels: #1.) What the ITC document says, and, #2.) What Ratzinger has stated about nature, his interpretation of the scientific evidence, and the ID project. #1.) What I see as your misinterpretations of the ITC document: I disagree that the document says “No” to the ID-Dembski-Behe-Discovery Institute, et al project. Let’s go back and look at how the doc mentions Dembski:

“The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that, if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. 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.”

Notice that: -- The ITC brings Specified Complexity into the discussion in order to rebut the idea that “there can be no place in [evolution] for divine providential causality.” Loosely, the document says, “Some conclude that ‘if neo-Darwinism, then purely contingent,’ while others conclude that ‘if evidence of design in Specified Complexity, then not purely contingent.” This is either an explicit or implicit affirmation of Dembski’s claim that only intelligence can bring about Specified Complexity, ergo only intelligence can bring about the design of biological structures. Of course, the Catholic Church holds that the designing cause of the cosmos and life is God, based on logic, reason, philosophy, and theology, in addition to the observable evidence. In so doing, Ratzinger and the Catholic Church make wider claims than does intelligent design. ID modestly posits intelligent cause, instead of the omnipotent God of the Catholic Church. More on this next. If this statement is not an implicit or explicit affirmation of detecting design through observable evidence, then what is it? -- You said:

I have heard Ken Miller, Jack Krebs, and Eugenie Scott all agree with this: whether evolution is “guided” (e.g. by God as in theistic evolution) is a philosophical or theological position that is outside of science. That’s what the statement is saying above.

It sounds like there is controversy among the Darwinians as to whether this is true; since Dawkins, Provine, Dennet, and other atheists disagree. I mostly agree with this position, but I would add a crucial distinction. My clarifier would be that, “Whether evolution is guided by the Christian God is a philosophical or theological position that is outside of science.” However, I would also say, “Whether evolution is guided by intelligence is a position that can be supported or unsupported based on observable evidence, thereby falling within the realm of science, not theology.” The distinction here is: observable scientific evidence ergo omnipotent God, vs. observable scientific evidence ergo design. In my understanding of ID claims, science operating alone can do the second, but not the first. It would seem to me that the ITC agrees with me on this point, since they say, “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.” Notice that this disagreement of “whether the available data support inferences of design or chance” is not hinging on theology, but on “scientific observation.” As I read the ITC document, they are saying that it is, in principle, possible to make empirical observations and infer intentional design. More on this next. -- Notice they say that “whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology.” This statement assumes that the data of scientific observation CAN deny or “support inferences of design or chance.” If the entire scientific debate over intelligent design could be boiled down to one issue, this is the one. Simply stated: “Can science infer design from observable evidence regarding the development of the cosmos and life?” In assuming that the observable evidence is, in principle, capable of inferring design, the Catholic Church is absolutely committed to the intelligent design side of the issue. (Cf. Romans chapter 1, verses 20 and 21.) -- In your reply you bring out the statement that says, “the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation.” The ITC is saying that God can use contingent processes, not that detecting design is impossible. How does this seem to say “No” to inferring design from the observable evidence regarding the development of the cosmos and life? To my mind, this statement merely invokes a possibility, not a necessary or strong conclusion on the part of the ITC and Ratzinger. Also, in the Holy Father’s first homily, he stated: “We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution.” http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2005/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20050424_inizio-pontificato_en.html This statement would negate the idea that man resulted from a purely contingent process, would it not? Also, how does he know man did not result from contingent processes that are meaningless and blind? We’ll see later in my reply here that it is from the observational scientific evidence. Based on my knowledge, no ID proponent states that designers cannot establish apparently stochastic processes. (Someone please correct me if I am wrong.) Rolling a pair of dice is a very nicely designed process, which is clearly contingent. According to most philosophical systems, my person is contingent, since I am not necessary in any ultimate or absolute sense. Nor do ID proponents claim that designers never establish apparently stochastic processes. Based on Dembski’s formulations, if a designer used a stochastic process to bring about all of the diversity of life, we would never be able to conclude design based on the observable evidence. Yet, what is at stake when ID proponents argue against Neo-Darwinism is this exact point: Does the scientific evidence indicate that the mechanism bringing about biological change is a purely contingent process? Many scientists who would not be caught dead with the likes of ID proponents agree with the ID community that the evidence claimed to support the idea that all genetic changes came about through a chance process must be examined with an opened mind, and subsequently rejected. In fact, Dembski has pointed out that the ID research program in a nutshell is “teasing apart” the effects of chance, necessity, and design. If an ID researcher is looking into the design of the cosmos, they must admit that there are, in fact, what strongly appear to be chance processes. If an ID researcher is looking into the design of life, they must admit that there are, in fact, what strongly appear to be chance processes. Some ID theorists grant that random mutation and non-random death (natural selection) can accomplish some biological change, like what has been called devolution and microevolution. But again, the ITC is not saying that God did, in fact, use only contingency-based processes. Only that it is possible that they were used. And again, how does this statement from the ITC doc “seem” to say “No” to inferring design from the observable evidence regarding the development of the cosmos and life? As I see it, your “No” conclusion is a non-sequitor at best, a red herring at worst. If this ITC document seems to have said “No” to ID, I sure would like to know how. I could say more on the ITC document, but we will trudge forward into other statements by Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict. #2.) What I see as your possible misinterpretations of statements that Ratzinger/Benedict has made about nature, his view of the scientific evidence, and the ID project. I have pulled quotes here from Ratzinger relevant to the ID/evolution debate, with bold emphasis added by me on key words:

“Our science, which ultimately makes it possible to work with the energies of nature, presupposes the trustworthy, intelligent structure of matter, […] the “design” of creation.” https://silentplanet.wordpress.com/2006/04/19/pope-benedict-xvi-on-intelligent-design

I’m not sure how one could read this statement to mean that Ratzinger is saying no to ID. Any thoughts here? ------------------------------

“In the beginning, the creative word -- this word that created everything and created this intelligent project that is the cosmos -- is also love.” http://www.suntimes.com/output/religion/cst-nws-pope13.html

Notice that creation is an “intelligent project,” not an “accident” or even a “chance-based process progressively seeking order.” Again, I’m not sure how one could read this statement to mean that Ratzinger is saying no to ID. ------------------------------ From a Ratzinger book titled, “In the Beginning”:

“Now let us go directly to the question of evolution and its mechanisms. Microbiology and biochemistry have brought revolutionary insights here. … In so doing they brought us to the awareness that an organism and a machine have many points in common. For both of them realize a project, a thought-out and considered plan, which is itself coherent and logical. Their functioning presupposes a precisely thought-through and therefore reasonable design.

He uses the same man-made machine/biological machine induction that Behe makes in Darwin’s Black Box. This connection between Ratzinger’s thought and Behe’s thought seems undeniable. If it is deniable, please explain how.

Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of "haphazard mistakes." [5] What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. … http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

Ratzinger draws these conclusions from the observable scientific evidence of microbiology and biochemistry, not from theology. Also note that he directly denies that we are strictly a product of random chance, or of an unguided process. ------------------------------ Many anti-ID individuals claim that criticizing evolution amounts to a disingenuous ID tactic, and that invoking the “superfluous” difference between microevolution and macroevolution is creationist propaganda. If that be the case, then count the Pope in. In a Nov. 27, 1999 lecture delivered at the Sorbonne titled “The Truth of Christianity,” published in his 2003 book Truth and Tolerance, he states:

“No one will be able to cast serious doubt upon the scientific evidence for micro-evolutionary processes,” he wrote. “R. Junker and S. Scherer, in their ‘critical reader’ on evolution, have this to say: ‘Many examples of such developmental steps [micro-evolutionary processes] are known to us from natural processes of variation and development. The research done on them by evolutionary biologists produced significant knowledge of the adaptive capacity of living systems, which seems marvelous.’ … The problem emerges at the point of transition from micro- to macro-evolution, on which point Szathmáry and Maynard Smith, both convinced supporters of an all-embracing theory of evolution, nonetheless declare that: ‘There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens.’ ” http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=75841

I also understand that in his book “Truth and Tolerance,” Ratzinger criticizes the idea that the explanation for the cosmos and life is purely chance-based, and favors an intentionality-based explanation. I have not read the whole book yet, but I plan on reading it soon. ------------------------------ Of course, I do not know everything. I probably have missed something and would be delighted to hear your thoughts and sources. Furthermore, I could be misinterpreting what the ITC and Ratzinger are saying, but if they seem to have said “No” to ID, I sure would like to know how... Inquisitive Brain

Whew! The anguish of it all … not being Catholic why should I care? ... except that it’s an organization not to be underestimated (“How many divisions has he got?”) ... and in that sense it matters to us all. Religious pluralism—what a wonderful thing! Early on the Catholics saw coming this culture of death (though blind to it’s Darwinian connection), grass roots Protestant fundamentalists did grasp the danger of Darwin (and this before anyone else yet lacked social prestige and influence outside their own grass roots), and though the great bulk of Jews converted to the Church of Materialism they still provided a social conscience: Never again! Just imagine the 20th century without this pluralism ... as also the century we’ve just entered. Imagine having to wait on the Pope or the ADL to be informed re Darwin or ID. Rude

Inq Brain: "You have not read the document thoroughly, or you forgot what the document discloses." I guess we both can't read then. The statement does mention the "critics of neo-Darwinism" but then says those critics are wrong since: "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. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation." That seems to say "No" to the scientific program advanced by the "critics of neo-Darwinism." Evolution by natural selection is a truly contingent natural process that falls within God's Providence. To be fair, the statement also says: "In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science." I have heard Ken Miller, Jack Krebs, and Eugenie Scott all agree with this: whether evolution is "guided" (e.g. by God as in theistic evolution) is a philosophical or theological position that is outside of science. That's what the statement is saying above. The ITC statement is nicely formatted on my site. I think I know what it says, the important paragraphs are 62 to 70. http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm Phil P PhilVaz

Phil P - Excellent point about the First Vatican Council. The Catholic Church will always be committed to the empirical detection of intelligence activity, and God's activity, in nature.

Ken Miller, Jack Krebs, myself, and the International Theological Commission statement endorsed by former Cardinal Ratzinger say No.

Reason, logic, and the facts say otherwise. This statement concerning the ITC betrays your ignorance of the ITC and Ratzinger’s work. I have heard this fallacious argument in so many online venues that I am now impelled to respond and slay this ridiculous contention. Please consider the following quotation from the ITC document: "A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted." Source: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html Did we catch that? It is clear to anyone with their ear in this debate that the ITC is speaking of Dembski’s specified complexity. Ratzinger signed off on a document that cites Dembski’s Specified Complexity in an implied affirmative. Please follow the link and read the context for clarity and distinctions. You have not read the document thoroughly, or you forgot what the document discloses. If you claim that the ITC document says 'no' to ID (a la Dembski, Behe, etc.) it is time to reevaluate your conclusions. You need to reread the document, or read it for the first time, instead of counting on others to do the reading for you. Additionally, based on his own words in other venues, Ratzinger supports both of the major claims of ID; cosmological and biological design detectable by logic and empirical means. It seems like you have parroted what others have been saying. Parroting what other ignorant people say is not compelling to the informed minds here at UncommonDescent. It’s not even cute. In fact, it is dangerous now that I see you are a Catholic apologist. What say you? Inquisitive Brain

Phil P, Why should the Catholic Church accept neo Darwinism as the mechanism for evolution if there is no evidence that this mechanism could or has ever been the source of any change in life forms other than trivial changes? If the Catholic Church examines the evidence and pronounces that currently there is no support for neo Darwinism other than for these trivial changes, what are the consequences. My guess is that they will never endorse anything as specific as the ID espoused by the Discovery Institute but could certainly pull the plug on neo Darwinism without much trouble. This is implied in the document you offered a couple weeks ago by Ratzinger. Here is the key paragraph “According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.” This statement by Ratzinger certainly opens the door for the Catholic Church to distance themselves from Darwinism on those areas which it has never been shown to have any relevance. These irrelevant areas make up most of evolution. If in the future there is some new findings that support neo Darwinism in more than the trivial areas for which it can now explain then the Church could then accept the new findings just as they would for any other scientific finding. jerry

From moderator Denyse: Thanks for an interesting and illuminating post, P. Phillips! Here's a thought that may help discussion of these issues: Where an issue mainly or exclusively impacts Jews, I think Jews should be the majority of commenters, for a healthy discussion. (Jews = religious or ethnic. The main question is, if a riot against Jews ensued, would YOU feel unsafe? Why? Of course, social Darwinism does not count as an issue that primarily or exclusively affects Jews because outside of Hitler's domain (1933-1945), most of its victims were simply members of traditional and usually non-Judaic communities. Hitler killed his Jewish victims because he had the power to do so. Social Darwinists in the Western democracies had to proceed much more carefully. In Canada, my home and native land, only a few victims of social Darwinism were Jews. Generally, the victims were simply members of minority communities who had come to the attention of public health officials. Here, the victims were not killed; they were surgically sterilized. I used to cover this stuff on my old soc sci beat, a thousand years ago - actually only about thirty years ago, when some of those people were still alive but the Internet barely existed. So they were rarely heard, not even the muffled cries. But still ... some of us had very sensitive antennae ... we heard the echoes of the cries ... O'Leary

I enjoy your blogs on the Church's position, but don't forget the explicit reference to intelligent design at Vatican Council I in 1869-70 (see chapter 2, "On Revelation" paragraph 1, and the canons 1-5 on "God the Creator of all things"). "The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason...." (cf. Romans 1:19-20). http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM This is dogma according to Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, a standard orthodox source (see especially pages 79-95, etc). We don't have to be unsure or guess what the Catholic Church's stand is. A source like Ott (or Denzinger) lays it all out, and he did this in the 1950s well before the rise of the "Intelligent Design" movement. The question is whether the (lower case) intelligent design endorsed by the Church can be equated with the supposed "scientific" program of the Discovery Institute. Ken Miller, Jack Krebs, myself, and the International Theological Commission statement endorsed by former Cardinal Ratzinger say No. Phil P PhilVaz

Now, this isn't about Catholics, and I discussed the Pope yesterday, but any thoughts about this, which I am sure is controversial? http://www.towardtradition.org/article_help_or_harm.htm EXCERPT: Help or Harm— Which Jews Does the ADL Really Represent? © Rabbi Daniel Lapin August 24th, 2006 Examining which issues raise its organizational blood-pressure, it is easy to see that the ADL chiefly represents two categories of Jews. One: Jews for whom the doctrines of secular fundamentalism and of the Democratic Party have replaced the authentic principles of Judaism. Two: Jews who consider Christian conservatives to be a far greater peril than Islamic extremism. It now turns out that the ADL represents yet a third category of Jews: those passionately dedicated to defending Darwin. Once again, like a friendly and frolicsome puppy with a large, bushy tail that constantly knocks down expensive vases, the ADL, though filled with good intent, is utterly, completely clueless. Not only is it misrepresenting Judaism, but it may well be cracking the priceless vase of Jewish survival. The ADL has just launched an intemperate and hysterical attack against Coral Ridge Ministries in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. This weekend, the ministry is releasing a television documentary entitled Darwin’s Deadly Legacy. It features prominent intellectuals like University of California law professor Phillip Johnson, and scientists with unimpeachable academic credentials like professors Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells. This dazzling production shows how ideas always have consequences, often unintended, and how Darwinism has impacted American culture. It discusses how the philosophy of evolution can dehumanize people and how Adolf Hitler, on his own admission, was influenced by Darwinian thought. This is how the ADL blasted the documentary (reportedly, before seeing it): “This is an outrageous and shoddy attempt by D. James Kennedy to trivialize the horrors of the Holocaust.” ADL National Director Abe Foxman warns that, “It must be remembered that D. James Kennedy is a leader among the distinct group of Christian Supremacists who seek to reclaim America for Christ and turn the U.S. into a Christian nation guided by their strange notions of biblical law.” Serious people are asking these three questions: Why is a movie that shows how Darwinian thought helped shape Hitler’s murderous mind, dangerous to Jews? Why is it necessary to insult so harshly one of America’s most prominent Christian leaders? Or to put it more bluntly, how exactly does it help Jews when the ADL humiliates an Evangelical leader whom as many as forty million Americans revere? Especially since Christian conservatives are virtually alone in acting benevolently towards Jews and standing with Jews in support of Israel. P. Phillips