Welcome to SPN

Register and Join the most happening forum of Sikh community & intellectuals from around the world.

Sign Up Now!

Christianity Intelligent Design: Losing the Catholics

Discussion in 'Interfaith Dialogues' started by spnadmin, Dec 6, 2010.

  1. spnadmin

    spnadmin United States
    Expand Collapse
    1947-2014 (Archived)
    SPNer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    14,551
    Likes Received:
    19,200
    Admin note: Darwin's theory of evolution has been the official position regarding the science of evolution of the Roman Catholic Church since the last century.


    John Farrell

    Author, The Day Without Yesterday: Lemaitre, Einstein and the Birth of Modern Cosmology


    This has not been a good year for the Discovery Institute. I'm sure book sales to their core creationist audience of Biblical literalists are steady. And, as Barbara Forrest has shown, they're hoping the Louisiana State Education Act, which is directly based on their own template for state public education policy, allows Fundamentalists in at least one state to disallow biology science textbooks that teach evolution.

    But that's not the same thing as having one of your Institute Fellows get a paper published in Nature. Or Cell. Or Science. It's not the same thing as celebrating a grant from the NSF to pursue some promising research.

    The Discovery Institute has from its beginning claimed it would in short order get actual scientists to consider intelligent design as a viable scientific theory, by publishing peer-reviewed articles in the leading science journals.

    But they've failed. And no matter how much cheering the Institute Fellows get from friendly audiences at Bible schools and church socials, the reality is: this was not the way things were supposed to turn out.

    And now, they're losing the Catholics.

    This past year, prominent Catholic conservative intellectuals at once ID-friendly magazines and web sites, started to break their silence about the vapidity of intelligent design.

    First, Edward Feser, professor of philosophy at Pasadena College, began posting a series of essays showing up the hollow philosophical shell at the heart of intelligent design. Feser's main point is that, at least for Catholics, ID is hopelessly devoid of solid metaphysical grounding:

    The problems are twofold. First, both Paleyan "design arguments" and ID theory take for granted an essentially mechanistic conception of the natural world. What this means is that they deny the existence of the sort of immanent teleology or final causality affirmed by the Aristotelian-Thomistic-Scholastic tradition, and instead regard all teleology as imposed, "artificially" as it were, from outside.

    Feser's posts are detailed, well-researched, and an excellent resource for any Christian parent confused by the contradictory claims of ID proponents.

    Next, University of Delaware physicist Stephen M. Barr decided it was time to be frank: intelligent design, he wrote in First Things, has been a disaster:

    What has the intelligent design movement achieved? As science, nothing. The goal of science is to increase our understanding of the natural world, and there is not a single phenomenon that we understand better today or are likely to understand better in the future through the efforts of ID theorists. If we are to look for ID achievements, then, it must be in the realm of natural theology. And there, I think, the movement must be judged not only a failure, but a debacle.

    There have, of course, been weak attempts by Discovery Institute flaks to claim Aquinas as an ally in support of their argument for design; indeed some claim that Aquinas' Fifth Argument is the classic argument for design. But this does not stand up to scrutiny, as philosopher-blogger Brandon Watson has pointed out:

    The problem is that the Fifth Way is not actually a design argument. The phrase translated by 'designedly' here is actually ex intentione; but ex intentione does not signify design but orientation. The Fifth Way is actually an argument not from design but from the fact that there's any causation at all. On Aquinas's scholastic adaptation of Aristotle, the end or final cause is what selects the effect for the efficient cause -- in other words, it is what answers the question, "Why does this cause produce this effect rather than some other effect?" The disposition of the cause to the end is its intentio. The word is associated in the medieval imagination with archery: the aim of the arrow is its intentio. So the argument of the Fifth Way is roughly that because nonintelligent things act regularly in order to achieve an end, they must achieve their end not a casu, by chance, but ex intentione, by being disposed to it. But things not capable of determining their own ends have to be, in the end, disposed to them by things capable of determining ends, namely, intelligences. So what is supposed to be at stake in this argument is not design but any sort of causation that is not due to deliberate self-determination; what's being examined is the very possibility of bodies having effects at all. This is perfectly general; final causes are for Aquinas the explanation for the fact that efficient causation occurs at all.

    The 13th century Dominican theologian would have been as puzzled by intelligent design proponents as today's Dominican biologists are.

    Father Nicanor Austriaco, a biologist and Dominican who has his own lab at Providence College, published a paper in 2003 called In Defense of Double Agency in Evolution: A Response to Five Modern Critics (not available online, alas) in the Rome-based Catholic journal, Angelicum, showing just how comprehensively evolution can be accommodated in a true Catholic philosophical and theological tradition.

    For Austriaco, the tradition is clear. "When double agency is cast within the classical framework of Western theism especially as it was articulated by St. Thomas Aquinas," he wrote, "it remains a coherent and fruitful theological explanation for divine action in an evolving world." No watchmaker in the sky is required in the simplistic sense that ID proponents insist is the only explanation standing ... between Christian children and certain atheism.

    "When we talk about evolution," Austriaco told me in a recent interview, "most people think that to affirm that evolution is a contingent process, is to necessarily exclude divine providence." But this is simply not the case, he argues. "The irony about the intelligent design debate today, is that the intelligent design proponents, like the Darwinists, presuppose an opposition between chance and design. They necessitate an opposition between chance and design. If it's design, it cannot be chance. If it's chance, it cannot be design. There is no option -- and there are philosophical reasons why the moderns can't come up with this -- there is no option, no one thinks about the possibility of talking about God's design working through chance, through contingency."

    Needless to say, Catholics like Fr. Austriaco, Professors Feser and Barr, are not the kind of Christians whose views are welcome at the Discovery Institute. [It goes without saying that Brown biology professor Kenneth Miller might as well be Public Enemy No. 1.]

    So, all is not well in Seattle. For Christians who support solid science education, that's something to celebrate. The more the vapid arguments of the Discovery Institute are exposed, the smaller and smaller their audience will become.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-farrell/intelligent-design-losing_b_790527.html
     
  2. Loading...

    Similar Threads Forum Date
    School board member Randy Tomasacci wants to explore including "intelligent design" in the science c Interfaith Dialogues Jun 6, 2005
    General Is there Intelligent, Ethical Life on Other Planets? Hard Talk Jan 17, 2011
    Maxxan Rolls Out Intelligent Switch for the Midmarket (Ziff Davis) Interfaith Dialogues May 1, 2005
    Arts/Society Super Sikh - New Design!!! Let me know your thoughts. Language, Arts & Culture Jul 13, 2015
    Leisure I designed website for the Gurudwara here! Business, Lifestyle & Leisure Aug 22, 2013

  3. helgasdogs

    helgasdogs
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    13
    Dear spnadmin,

    <?"urn:[​IMG]The IDists assert that 'God-magic' is needed to 'wind up the world-machine.' The Darwinists disavow knowledge of such magic, and insist that the world-machine necessarily existed in the wound-up state in the beginning, for unknown reasons, and a to-date-still-incomprehensible 'downhill path of evolution' exists, knowable by inference.</SPAN>
    It is not hard for the Idea-focussed, reflective individual to realise that neither side knows what it is talking about in main. The IDists style themselves as Defenders of the Faith, without which the gateway to morality ceases, and, as far as that goes, they're right. The Darwinists style themselves as Defenders of Science, without which we lose the whole Enlightenment heritage of humanism, human rights, and technological innovation. Who is right?

    The more nearly comprehensive understanding dwells in the Catholic Church, with its very lengthy tradition of Theological exploration, in effective collaboration with many of the great thinking minds of the past two thousand years such as Gottfried Leibniz (inventor of the Calculus), Russian biogeochemist V.I. Vernadsky (describer of the principle of creative evolution, called the Noosphere), and Lyndon LaRouche (writer of the book "The Science of Christian Economy). Evolution seen in the light of those great minds is eminently possible, because they, in keeping with the Church, show that we live in a creative Universe, not a mechanistic, clock-keeping Universe that both the fundamentalist materialists and the fundamentalist Creationists believe we do.

    Yours,

    "h"
     
    • Like Like x 1
    #2 helgasdogs, Dec 9, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 10, 2015
  4. spnadmin

    spnadmin United States
    Expand Collapse
    1947-2014 (Archived)
    SPNer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    14,551
    Likes Received:
    19,200
    helgasdogs ji

    It is a personal pleasure to be able to read your post. I really fell you have given some value, the outline for a semester's worth of information in a few paragraphs. Just about everything you have cited is brand new information for me and definitely something I want to follow up.

    The Vatican itself maintains a world class astronomical observatory -- could this be its way of correcting for centuries of dogmatic ignorance and suppression of thinkers like Galileo and Copernicus?


    I'd like to reinforce that the admin note is there so all are clear that the Roman Church has stayed its intellectual course steadily on the subject of evolution for a considerable amount of time. The track record has been to keep matters of science distinct from matters of faith, remaining open to the idea the exploration may find places where 2 rivers meet or diverge. However this is not always the case. Paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin was a subject of internal controversy within the church, and some of his works were suppressed by church fathers when his interpretations of human paleontological evidence ran counter to the teachings of Augustine on original sin. My sense is that the controversy had more to do with the sting to powerful egos, and less to do with the official stand on evolution.

    I cannot say more because I do not know more.
     
  5. helgasdogs

    helgasdogs
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    13
    Dear spnadmid,

    I'm happy you find my response worthwhile. I'll be around this forum from now one, of and on, so, if you have any questions for me about anything, really, feel free to ask them, and I'll answer when I arrive next.

    Astronomy holds a special place in the annals of Western religious thought, going back as far as Egypt, whose Great Pyramid actually doubled as a primitive observatory (the main diagonal shaft leading to the pyramid's core blocked out interfering light allowing the study of the stars, or so I have been taught). It introduced the concept of sphaerics into the world, the notion of deriving ontological-cum-religious truths from the non-astrological contemplation of the heavens. The Vatican, once it got over the shock of the Copernican revolution (a precursor to Einstein's relativity theory), has embraced astronomy as a noble pursuit and a metaphor for man searching for the One ("God").

    Yours,

    "h"
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page