Top Vatican official says Catholic scientists should “come out”

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 21, 2017

Intelligent Design, News, Religion, Science}

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

From John L. Allen, Jr., at Crux Now:

Most basically, Consolmagno said, it’s important to maintain the proper distinction between what science can prove, and what faith can add.
“God is not something we arrive at the end of our science, it’s what we assume at the beginning,” he said, adding emphatically: “I am afraid of a God who can be proved by science, because I know my science well enough to not trust it!”

More.

Excuse us. Faith can add nothing to what cannot be demonstrated. Many popular theories such as the multiverse, Darwinism, alt right eugenics, cannot be demonstrated at all.

So, translation from Consolmagno: Not to worry, we really are theistic naturalists: Nature is all there is. But we do still have a right to holler fer Gawd in our spare time. Don’t we?

Yes, so long as we ignore the fact that naturalism is rotting science.

See also: Pope Francis and science

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

wd400 Just keep an eye on the future biology research. It'll make the case for intelligent design stronger with every new discovery. As far as I'm concerned, I don't have to proof anything. The ID proponents stop at the design inference, because they arrive at it through the scientific analysis of the available evidences. To me the ID concept is a logical conclusion derived from the belief that the ultimate reality is defined by the first few verses of the first chapter of the Gospel according to the Apostle John. Have a good week.Dionisio_{May 28, 2017
May
05
May
28
28
2017
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT}

OK. I look forward to the proof of this claim.wd400_{May 28, 2017
May
05
May
28
28
2017
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT}

wd400, By now we already have enough knowledge to say that the functional complexity observed within the developmental programs can only be the result of intelligent design. There's no other explanation, specially considering that most new discoveries make the complexity more complex.Dionisio_{May 28, 2017
May
05
May
28
28
2017
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

Please, note that this is not about explaining how things happened or might have happened. No. The presented problem is much easier and simpler in the formulation Dev(x)=f(Dev(ca),delta(x)). Just find where someone explains how it could be done theoretically, but coherently and comprehensively. That’s all folks.
You are going to have explain the difference between "might have happened" and "could be done theoretically" and "a hypothetical path," If you just meant what sorts changes that will have happened, then, of course, you hve mutation and recombination creating changes in the regulation of genes (through means as diverse and epigenetic modifications, the packing of DNA into fibres, cis and trans regulatory factors, RNA interference...) and the generation of entirely new genes. All of these ways of changing developmental programs have been studied. But if you are asking for a detailed account of how these types of alterations could act in two lineages over 250 million years to modify an unknown ancestral developmental network into modern forms then the answer is that we do not have enough knowledge about development to answer that question.wd400_{May 28, 2017
May
05
May
28
28
2017
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

#96 addendum wd400, your example of the "Grand Canyon" is much simpler than the biological examples we're discussing. Completely different categories. No comparison possible. In fact, comparing them leads to the reductionist approaches that have hindered and dragged down so much research through years. Let's stay away from that kind of oversimplification. Biology is so fascinating because it's functionally complex. If you do some experiment that demonstrate how water and wind erosion occurs on different types of soil and rocks, just scale the results up and bingo! No need to track down every grain of sand. That's absurd, as you well stated. But that's not the case in Biology, where they have to show how the different kinds of developmental processes --partially mentioned @75-- could have appeared without guidance. But no need to track down every process. Just the different kinds within differing scenarios. Then scale up the results. That's all. Obviously that's still quite a bit compared with your "Grand Canyon" failed analogy. But it's doable. Perhaps theoretically we could eventually recreate most biological systems, just by looking at them and trying to see how to assemble them in a logical spatiotemporal way that leads to the pursued result. Obviously that would take a long time. We're far from there. However, even if it's done, that would imply purpose, goal, design. But could we create the developmental process? Maybe? Dunno.Dionisio_{May 27, 2017
May
05
May
27
27
2017
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

wd400 @95:
The absurd level of detail if what you asked for, the sum of changes to “regulatory networks, signaling pathways, epigenetic markers, morphogenetic mechanisms, asymmetric segregation of intrinsic cell fate determinants, and any kind of molecular or cellular mechanisms associated with the developmental processes” that occurred in two lineages over the course of 250 million years from an ancestor that we have no access to. This is like asking someone what created the grand canyon and not being satisfied with “erosion” as an answer until you are given a complete history of every grain of sand in the Colorado river. Absurd.
Your "Grand Canyon" example is indeed absurd. However, it seems like you missed, skipped, or misunderstood an entire paragraph in my comment @75, which apparently triggered your "absurd level of detail" comment. Did you notice this paragraph?
Please, note that this is not about explaining how things happened or might have happened. No. The presented problem is much easier and simpler in the formulation Dev(x)=f(Dev(ca),delta(x)). Just find where someone explains how it could be done theoretically, but coherently and comprehensively. That’s all folks.
Did your "absurd level of detail" comment consider the latter quoted paragraph too? Do you understand what that paragraph is trying to say? Do you see how that paragraph practically invalidates your "Grand Canyon" comparison? If you don't see it, I could try to rewrite it. Maybe other readers of this thread could pitch in some suggestions on how to clarify this? Note that there are certain conditions and/or processes that have to be explained in order to make an argument seriously valid. Otherwise, the arguments become "just so" stories, like Cinderella's pumpkin turned carriage, mice turned horses and grasshopper turned "cochero". No need to guess how things happened. All it is required is to demonstrate with rigorous scientific methods how it could have happened. A hypothetical path, though it could have occurred differently. But details are needed. The more, the better. We're talking about serious science, not paparazzi's pics of celebrities at the beach. That goes into gossiping magazines. Please, note that what I wrote @75 is in line with what the evo-devo folks are trying to do. I did not invent the whole thing. It's not my idea. I got it from reading relatively recent evo-devo literature. BTW, are we having reading comprehension issues here? :)Dionisio_{May 27, 2017
May
05
May
27
27
2017
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

Dinosio, There is nothing unclear about your questions, indeed your whole style is nakedly clear. To clarify my response. The absurd level of detail if what you asked for, the sum of changes to "regulatory networks, signaling pathways, epigenetic markers, morphogenetic mechanisms, asymmetric segregation of intrinsic cell fate determinants, and any kind of molecular or cellular mechanisms associated with the developmental processes" that occurred in two lineages over the course of 250 million years from an ancestor that we have no access to. This is like asking someone what created the grand canyon and not being satisfied with "erosion" as an answer until you are given a complete history of every grain of sand in the Colorado river. Absurd. Obviously, biological researchers continue to uncover more and more detail about they ways genes are regulated (I am one fo those researchers, btw). But no one with a good understanding of modern biological research imagines we could produce the sort minutely detailed response you want anytime soon.wd400_{May 27, 2017
May
05
May
27
27
2017
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

asauber @92:
If wd400 and Bob O’H and rvb8 represent biology then yes, I am consumed with absolute metaphysical disappointment in biology.
If your politely dissenting interlocutors had anything to do with biology then it wouldn't be a science, but a bad joke. Fortunately that's not the case. Biology is the most fascinating and dynamic science these days, precisely because many serious scientists are doing intensive research and making very interesting discoveries that are increasingly shedding light on the elaborate cellular and molecular choreographies orchestrated within the biological systems. Sadly your politely dissenting interlocutors don't see that, hence they can't enjoy it as we do. Maybe that's why they seem so frustrated, always whining and complaining. Poor things. Let's show compassion to them. May y'all have a good weekend.Dionisio_{May 27, 2017
May
05
May
27
27
2017
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

I'm sure Biology is devastated.Bob O'H_{May 27, 2017
May
05
May
27
27
2017
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

Thanks, Dionisio @ #90.
you will be disappointed by biology
If wd400 and Bob O'H and rvb8 represent biology then yes, I am consumed with absolute metaphysical disappointment in biology. Andrewasauber_{May 27, 2017
May
05
May
27
27
2017
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

@78: What was rvb8's main failure in his discussion with cmow? Attacking cmow's character or checking sources? Carefully reading @78 should help to answer that question.Dionisio_{May 27, 2017
May
05
May
27
27
2017
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

asauber @86: That was a funny comment. I like it. Thank you. However, I wouldn't go as far as calling it "very convincing" but maybe "kind of persuasive"? :) BTW, can you post the link to the 'sign up' webpage after you find it? :) PS. Perhaps at some point wd400 might regret that (s)he wrote the comment @83 or at least that (s)he used the word 'absurd'. :) In any case I'll forgive him/her because (s)he doesn't know what (s)he's doing. Wisdom comes only from one source.Dionisio_{May 27, 2017
May
05
May
27
27
2017
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

wd400 @83:
If you want this absurd level of detail you will be disappointed by biology.
1. What do you call "absurd level of detail"? Why? 2.a Would it be better or worse for biology if more details are known? 2.b Should biology research stop once it reaches certain level of detail? 2.c Is there a level of detail where biology research should stop? 2.d Is there a level of detail beyond which biology researchers shouldn't look further? Please, note that I've asked the question #2 in various formats (a,b,c,d) in order to increase the probability of finding one format that makes the question more clear for you. You may answer the format you feel more comfortable with. However, you're free to answer them all if you will. :) Thank you. PS. Apparently the term 'absurd level of detail' was referring to my comment @75.Dionisio_{May 27, 2017
May
05
May
27
27
2017
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

wd400 @85: 1. Can you explain why you don't agree? Thank you.Dionisio_{May 27, 2017
May
05
May
27
27
2017
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

wd400 @83:
If you want this absurd level of detail you will be disappointed by biology.
What do you call "absurd level of detail"? Why?Dionisio_{May 27, 2017
May
05
May
27
27
2017
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

There is obvious no single level of “acceptable” detail for any field
I note with some amusement that wd400's defense of Evolution has De-Evolved in to something like "Anything Goes, Therefore..." Very Convincing. Where do I sign up for Atheism? Andrewasauber_{May 27, 2017
May
05
May
27
27
2017
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

Dionisio, 1. I do not. 2. There is obvious no single level of "acceptable" detail for any field, biology is no different.wd400_{May 27, 2017
May
05
May
27
27
2017
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT}

wd400 @83: 1. Do you agree with my comments @75? 2. What level of detail should be acceptable for biology?Dionisio_{May 26, 2017
May
05
May
26
26
2017
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT}

Dionisio, I answered your question. If you want this absurd level of detail you will be disappointed by biology.wd400_{May 26, 2017
May
05
May
26
26
2017
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

Marfin - no, it doesn't get "kicked out", it moves to another part of the tree. Or it stays in the same part of the tree, but another branch is added. Yes, there are tests, e.g. "we will fond this sort of fossil here" (see Tiktaalik). Or that fossils with feathers will have other bird/dinosaur-like features.Bob O'H_{May 26, 2017
May
05
May
26
26
2017
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

Bob O`H. So fossil A is in the tree fossil B comes along so Fossil A gets kicked out Fossil C comes along and fossil B gets Kicked out then Fossil D comes along and fossil C gets kicked out and Fossil A is brought back in. I hope you are getting the picture here how can you trust any fossil is transitional and belongs in the tree if you find another one and kick the old one out. The tree exists because of a world view, fossils exist and these are the facts, trees exist only in the heads of people not in nature, they are the interpretation of the fossils found not the actual evidence.If there is no test it is outside empirical science.Marfin_{May 26, 2017
May
05
May
26
26
2017
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

the trees should become less wrong
This is very exciting news. Science that may become less wrong in the future. Stop the presses. This needs to go viral. Andrewasauber_{May 26, 2017
May
05
May
26
26
2017
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

Marfin @ 73 -
why do you think supposed hominid fossils move in and out of our family tree, its because they cannot be tested,
This is a strange claim - the reason they mode around is because the claims about where they are on the family tree are tested. As new data accumulates, the tests are updated, and sometimes the best tree changes.
You can make a family tree of almost anything does not mean it is right.
You are, of course, right. But it also of course it doesn't mean it's wrong either, and as we accumulate data, the trees should become less wrong. It's why, for example, in the original Jurassic Park the theory that birds were dinosaurs was suggested as something that was slightly wacky, but nowadays it's mainstream and accepted by almost everyone in biology.Bob O'H_{May 26, 2017
May
05
May
26
26
2017
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

rvb8 @50:
cmow, Dionisio, in this 6th edition of (1872) what is this new Chapter 7 called, and what is its subject matter? No Dionisio, cmow has been caught in an embarassing mystake, and is now attempting to lie and invent book chapters that don’t exist to cover his ineptitude. Please cmow, inform the world of this new and mysterious Chapter 7. Of course searching online is ID’s chosen method of ‘in depth’ research, which subsequently explains your profound lack of knowledge of a founding document of evolution.
rvb8 @56:
cmow, I am here to publish a full retraction and apology to you. The 6th edition does indeed have a new chapter 7, entitled Miscellaineous Objections to the Theory of Natural Selection. It appears to be an extension of chapter 6, Difficulties of the theory; I’m deeply sorry if I impungned your character; sorry.
rvb8 @69:
You do understand my faiure was in checking sources, not a fundamental failure in argument?
We could fail to check sources and still refrain from attacking someone else personally. What was the real main failure in your discussion with cmow? [emphasis mine]Dionisio_{May 26, 2017
May
05
May
26
26
2017
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

wd400 @72:
Marfin, I can only suggest you read some introductory texts on phylogenetics.
While you suggest Marfin reads some particular text, I suggest you try to answer my questions @67 & @75.Dionisio_{May 26, 2017
May
05
May
26
26
2017
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

rvb8 @69:
You do understand my faiure was in checking sources, not a fundamental failure in argument?
Well, let's see: rvb8 @50:
cmow, Dionisio, in this 6th edition of (1872) what is this new Chapter 7 called, and what is its subject matter? No Dionisio, cmow has been caught in an embarassing mystake, and is now attempting to lie and invent book chapters that don’t exist to cover his ineptitude. Please cmow, inform the world of this new and mysterious Chapter 7. Of course searching online is ID’s chosen method of ‘in depth’ research, which subsequently explains your profound lack of knowledge of a founding document of evolution.
Based on what you wrote @50, you have the audacity to say that it was just a failure "in checking sources"? Wasn't your highly accusatory (perhaps even offensive) text indicative of a bigger failure, to which even you yourself alluded @56 saying
I’m deeply sorry if I impungned your character
Did you attack cmow's character? cmow responded @66 very graciously, with forgiveness. I commended him/her for that. It's a lesson for the rest of us to keep in mind and learn from. We were made to be good, that's what IMAGO DEI also implies. But sadly we chose not to. Had we remained in Eden, none of this would have been an issue. Too late now.Dionisio_{May 26, 2017
May
05
May
26
26
2017
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

wd400 @65: Did you miss my questions @67? Also you wrote:
If you are getting around to asking do we know every change in every development system that brought about a particular evolutionary transition then the answer is of course not. Our level of understanding of development is not so detailed as to allow that.
Let's assume we have a biological system A and a different biological system B. They share some similarities. Now, saying that somehow A evolved into B without a solid, comprehensive, reasonably evidence-based proof could be considered speculation*. Presenting and even imposing a theory without knowing how to explain it in a comprehensive way is not science. Copernic and Newton knew how to explain their theories in sufficient details to make them very persuasive and convincing. That's not the case with the concoction of "just-so" afterthoughts blended in an ever-changing Darwinian theory --based on a gross extrapolation of a robustly built-in adaptation framework-- that keeps adding ideas as science makes new discoveries. That's either archaic pseudoscientific hogwash or low grade bovine excreta. Do you agree or disagree? Please, note that this is not about explaining how things happened or might have happened. No. The presented problem is much easier and simpler in the formulation Dev(x)=f(Dev(ca),delta(x)). Just find where someone explains how it could be done theoretically, but coherently and comprehensively. That's all folks. Much has been written about this and perhaps much more will be written in the future. Because it's an important area of discussion. But science should be more concerned about figuring out how the biological systems --specially the human physiology-- work and function so that new treatments and preventive methods could be conceived. OOL should not attract resources that could be used in more useful research for the benefit of all. Evolutionary speculation should be left out to philosophical discussions outside the wet and dry labs. Time is precious and resources are limited. Let's use them efficiently. (*) BTW, the concept 'speculation' is relatively frequent in biology-related research literature these days.Dionisio_{May 26, 2017
May
05
May
26
26
2017
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

There are almost certainly transitional species alive today. We just can’t yet know which ones and what transitions they mark!
wd400, I'd say evolutionary science isn't very robust, then. All the information about any living creature is here for you to discover, and there is nothing about it that identifies it as transitional. 'Transitional' appears to be after the fact story telling. Andrewasauber_{May 26, 2017
May
05
May
26
26
2017
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT}

wd400-I have never said every ,I said any, show me any fossil you can test and be sure . These trees you speak of are human constructs based on assumption and opinion , they do not necessarily have any basis in fact.You are just not getting this , why do you think supposed hominid fossils move in and out of our family tree, its because they cannot be tested,THEY CANNOT BE TESTED,they are put in our lineage in the first place based on assumption, world view, opinion,supposed age,etc but if it cannot be tested you can never be sure. You can make a family tree of almost anything does not mean it is right.Marfin_{May 26, 2017
May
05
May
26
26
2017
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT}

Bob, Sure, I just took Asauber to mean transition between the common ancestor of all archosaurs and modern birds. But you are right, there are no transitional between modern crocs and modern birds, since the one did not evolve into the other. Marfin, I can only suggest you read some introductory texts on phylogenetics. There quite a few tests for the degree to which characters are tree-like (e.g. consistency index), reconstructions of ancestral states and support for one tree shape or another (using whichever modern statistical school you prefer). You have also been told about seven times that paleontologists do not claim every transitional fossil is an ancestor, I don't know why you keep asking proof of something no one claims.wd400_{May 26, 2017
May
05
May
26
26
2017
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply