• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design - good take on this issue

S

Sniffles

Guest
Rainbows urged me to post this, since it puts an interesting twist to this common issue.

One thing that irritates me is how this debate is often misconstructed as one between religion and science, when in fact it's no such thing. Here's an important point made:
It is only in the past two or three decades that serious frictions began to emerge on a wider scale. Evolution theory was (rather unpredictably) turned into a rock-hard ideology, the intention of which was to act aggressively against religion. On the religious side the response was mostly a defensive one.

Why did things happen this way? I have a pet theory. “Conquering” and “triumphalist” secularist Christophobia used to rely, until recently, on three solid columns: Marx, Freud, and Darwin. We know very well how Marxism began to crumble, both theoretically and in practical ways; right now it is, at best, a phenomenon of the rearguard, of the losers and of the backward or hopeless activists and nations. We know equally well that Freud is treated by knowledgeable people, indeed by the public at large, with a kind of patronizing smile. A great genius? Some would continue to say so, but few would regard him as such in practice. Under these circumstances it became enormously important, even essential, for materialist determinists (and actual Christophobes) to rally around Darwin, to bolster him, to turn a mild scholarly hypothesis into a strict and dogmatic ideology.

One of the unintended supports of the rigid Darwinists came ironically from fundamentalist and literalist “creationists.” These people had never understood or accepted the complex and sophisticated mode of reading the Bible that Medieval Scholastics (and, even earlier, Talmudic scholars of the Hebrew Scriptures) had developed. They ignored the multiplicity of semantic layers (literal, symbolic, moral, anagogical—and sometimes more) to be found in the wealth of meanings embedded in the Sacred Texts. Likewise they were oblivious of the multiple rational arguments vindicating God and His ways. Most of the “creationists” were content with a literal reading of the Bible and with an explanation of Divine existence on the simple level of literal deduction (often described as “Revelation”: many of us may hesitate to label it so). I do not doubt the good intentions of such individuals, nor do I object to their firm faith. I merely note that by their positions they were turned into an easy prey and convenient foil for their adversaries and they opened an unjustified rift between reason and faith.

Fortunately, the response of most Catholics (as well as of a number of Protestants and Eastern Orthodox faithful) was placed on a rather different level and did not resort to a wholesale negation of scientific accomplishments. The mainstream Christian intellectuals sought their support from objective, neutral scholars and researchers, particularly those in “cutting-edge” sciences such as genetics and astrophysics. They simultaneously looked back to the classical arguments of the existence of God, as developed particularly in the Middle Ages. The latter had been considered obsolete or demolished by many in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries. Some or most of these arguments showed a remarkable resilience, however, and proved that in a renewed version they could be of considerable help in the renewed debate. Thus, for instance, the “teleological argument.”


This argument was fully developed by Averroes and by St. Thomas Aquinas during the Middle Ages, but early, somewhat sketchier outlines can be found already in the writings of Plato (e.g., Timaios and the Republic), Aristotle (Metaphysics), Cicero and the Neo-Platonic movement in general (not least St. Augustine). In simple summary it said that the universe is too orderly, purposeful, even beautiful to be the result of random mechanical causes; the assumption of Divine creation makes sense, it is in fact inevitable. While in its “hard” form it was doubted early on, the teleological argument “expanded” and ramified. In one way it was used (unexpectedly) by British empiricists—and occasionally even by Voltaire (!); in other ways, and more recently, it engendered the “argument from beauty” (at least since the great Chateaubriand on); even more recently, the “anthropic principle” or “teleonomy.” And more generally it provided ammunition for the wider “post-secularist” movement.” Such simple facts should be familiar to all intellectuals who are not hopelessly ignorant or ill-intentioned.

Two recent books—one French, one German—expand in highly sophisticated ways this “ramification” of the teleological argument and interestingly undermine the dogmatist and materialist “Darwinism” of the noisy “new atheists.”

First Principles - Foreign News on Intelligent Design

As the author notes later on, many of the philosophical premises of "New Atheists" like Dawkins and others seem rather passe and outdated on many levels.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ajblaise

Minister of Propagandhi
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
7,914
MBTI Type
INTP
So what exactly are you suggesting? That Intelligent Design is actual science and not just creationism lite?
 

A Schnitzel

WTF is this dude saying?
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
1,155
MBTI Type
INTP
Yes the catholic church isn't creationist in the strict sense. In fact it's fairly nebulous on which parts of evolutionary science it accepts. This would make it hard for any atheist evolutionary biologist to debate the topic. Instead they focus their arguments on the fundamentalist christians who have stricter stances on creation and are more of a hindrance to science in general.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Rainbows urged me to post this, since it puts an interesting twist to this common issue.

One thing that irritates me is how this debate is often misconstructed as one between religion and science, when in fact it's no such thing. Here's an important point made:

This is merely an appeal to semantics. I guarantee you that the motives of those on the "intelligent design" side of the argument are largely theological. Albeit the couple of flakes who propose that "aliens did it", or something to that affect. Does that disprove creationism? No.

One of the unintended supports of the rigid Darwinists came ironically from fundamentalist and literalist “creationists.” These people had never understood or accepted the complex and sophisticated mode of reading the Bible that Medieval Scholastics (and, even earlier, Talmudic scholars of the Hebrew Scriptures) had developed. They ignored the multiplicity of semantic layers (literal, symbolic, moral, anagogical—and sometimes more) to be found in the wealth of meanings embedded in the Sacred Texts.

In all fairness, I adore analogies and symbols; but let me give you an example of how loose definitions and stories can have dangerous consequences:

Today, words such as freedom, terrorism, honor, and anti-American are flippantly tossed around in the Political propaganda of the U.S.A. Surely, some of these phrases inspire general emotional messages within the populous. Hope, grandeur, fear, hate. Why do these terms invoke universal emotion?

It's because their definitions are not universal. One man might hear President Obama utter the word "Freedom", and gleefully think "Oh right! Economic freedom! Lower those taxes, buddy!" Meanwhile, his wife may be thinking "Hmm, freedom of choice?"

Loose interpretations mean everything, and yet nothing at all.

This is why literalism is superior, and ultimately less dangerous.

Does that disprove creationism? No.

This argument was fully developed by Averroes and by St. Thomas Aquinas during the Middle Ages, but early, somewhat sketchier outlines can be found already in the writings of Plato (e.g., Timaios and the Republic), Aristotle (Metaphysics), Cicero and the Neo-Platonic movement in general (not least St. Augustine). In simple summary it said that the universe is too orderly, purposeful, even beautiful to be the result of random mechanical causes; the assumption of Divine creation makes sense, it is in fact inevitable. While in its “hard” form it was doubted early on, the teleological argument “expanded” and ramified.

There are too many intuitive leaps in this argument. Empirical evidence suggest that complex systems such as our universe are entropic. The complexity and beauty of a thing does not confirm its functionality.

Now, one might suggest that "Because humanity has been around for so long, and because our universe is so beautiful, we must have a purpose." :strawman: However, we are but specs of dust; floating in a vast system of time and space. What humanity perceives on a sensual and temporal level is so minuscule that such an intuitive argument is hard to fathom. We are surveying a beautiful leaf for a millisecond within a tyrannical hurricane that will last for hours.

"The argument of beauty" is just as justified by saying "Yesterday, a magnificent peacock pooped on my head. GOD MUST EXIST!!"

Does that disprove creationism? No.

Obviously, creationism is hard to nip in the bud. I wonder why. :huh:
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Mystic, can you present an actual coherent point please?

Not really. To many arguments and counter arguments in my mind. None of them fully invalidate the others.

They're like my children. It would be wrong to favor one over the other.:blush:

I need some sleep...
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Sam Harris

If I were an apologist of religion, the person I would most fear would be Sam Harris.

He is not an entertainer like Christopher Hitchens or an obtuse philosopher like Dennet. He is very calm and easily understood and completely deadly in intention.

He seems to be well balanced and very well informed. He is not the kind of opponent I would wish on my worst enemy.

And yet here he is. He has set his sights on religion. And if anyone can succeed, it is likely to be Sam Harris.
 

Shimmy

New member
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
1,867
MBTI Type
SEXY
The difficulty with combining religion and science is that religion exists of dogmas. If science discovers something new that doesn't fit in with religion's existing ideologies religion will at first simply deny it, then as it becomes apparent that religion was wrong, which history has shown, it always is, they change their dogmas to incorporate the scientific discoveries. Yes, they change, but they're still dogmas.

A past example would be Copernicus, who mentioned that the sun rather then the earth is the centre of the solar system. The catholic church denied this theory at first but when it became painfully apparent that the catholic church was wrong they adapted their ideas and suddenly said that the earth was the 'spiritual' rather then the physical centre of the universe. They changed their wrong dogma, into a new dogma.

Intelligent design is just the same stupid shit as creationism, but science just hasn't got round to disproving it yet.
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
So, what are your thoughts, Peguy?

The Catholic church, when under the wisdom of Pope John Paul II, embraced evolution as "more than mere hypothesis" in 1996.

How this applies to the layman remain to be seen; yet, papal identity has accepted evolution - and not Creationism - as the relevant architecture for our biological heritage.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Pretty much that's it.

The two areas are based on different approaches to truth.

The scientific method is designed to weed out things that cannot be supported by evidence, even if it takes some time to gather that evidence. Revelation-based truth is necessarily authoritarian ... you're asked to choose to accept a given truth source as an authority, and there is no real basis to vet the choice. Some beliefs might be more vettable than others, but the bottom line is that in the end they have to be accepted based on faith in the authority in question.

I think the main proponents of Intelligent Design have placed themselves on record (I don't know if Behe ever stated it clearly, he might have, but I know Johnson and others have) that their goal is to destroy evolution's credibility and try to replace it with ID, and there is a chartable direct line of descent between creationism being pushed into schools followed by ID when creationism was not permitted. The highest profile was the Dover, PA case a few years ago, where it was clearly shown that the textbooks being pushed by the anti-evolution side were derived from old textbooks that talked about evolution... and in this case, the editors just ran search-and-replaces on creationism and replaced the term with Intelligent Design. This is one (among many) reasons the spiritual-minded judge still basically ruled against the school district and got ID tossed out of the school system there... it's obviously just Strategy #2 in the creationist arsenal and not derived from the scientific method, so it can't be taught as 'science' although it could be taught as an alternative belief.

So, what are your thoughts, Peguy? The Catholic church, when under the wisdom of Pope John Paul II, embraced evolution as "more than mere hypothesis" in 1996.

How this applies to the layman remain to be seen; yet, papal identity has accepted evolution - and not Creationism - as the relevant architecture for our biological heritage.

I always thought that was interesting, since I grew up as a Protestant and of course this was one reason why the people I was surrounded by had a cynicism of catholicism ... because it had "accepted evolution" and thus wasn't "really Christian." (I knew a lot of Y.E.C's and still know a few, although they've been passing away now.) As I got older, I realized the world and beliefs were more diverse legitimately than I had been taught...
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
I mean even if you believe that God is guiding evolution or whatever, you shouldn't put it in school. The only class that's allowed to claim that everything happens for a purpose is literature classes.
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
Is the acceptance of Darwinistic evolution contrary to Christian principles?

It'd be interesting to hear from Christians on this matter.
 

ajblaise

Minister of Propagandhi
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
7,914
MBTI Type
INTP
I mean even if you believe that God is guiding evolution or whatever, you shouldn't put it in school.

You can't blame them for trying, though. The theory of evolution, and science at large, is just adding the increasingly popular trend of secularization. Religion is losing its position of authority because of it.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
A past example would be Copernicus, who mentioned that the sun rather then the earth is the centre of the solar system. The catholic church denied this theory at first but when it became painfully apparent that the catholic church was wrong they adapted their ideas and suddenly said that the earth was the 'spiritual' rather then the physical centre of the universe. They changed their wrong dogma, into a new dogma.

You're wrong. Copernicus' work was not condemned by the Church as long as it was taught as theory. In fact he dedicated one of his first editions to Pope Leo X. Galileo also received official support from the pope(who was also a personal friend) for his scientific studies. And the Earth being the centre of the universe was never a Church "dogma", but was the common argument of astronomical theories of the time.

I mean even if you believe that God is guiding evolution or whatever, you shouldn't put it in school. The only class that's allowed to claim that everything happens for a purpose is literature classes.

No actually that's philosophy. The notion that there's some kind of purpose or design to the cosmos is literally consistent with the whole of Western philosophical tradition.
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
No actually that's philosophy. The notion that there's some kind of purpose or design to the cosmos is literally consistent with the whole of Western philosophical tradition.

I'm more referencing that Literature teachers insist that there's a purpose to every single little word a writer writes, you just have to find it. So yes, it's similar to philosophy, except philosophy is looking for that in everything, not just writing.

But pretty much every other subject, in the way it's taught, teaches that order is king and you're lucky to have found it at all in all that entropy and to ask "why" in the philosophical sense is being ungrateful to the almighty Order because the Order is not going to tell you. We don't say there's a God-given purpose to the direction an electron spins or the derivative of a certain function or to certain grammatical rules. They just are and you're supposed to be satisfied with that, and what you believe philosophically is your belief alone. Why should what we know of how animals and plants came to be the way they are now differ from the order of current teaching?
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
I'm more referencing that Literature teachers insist that there's a purpose to every single little word a writer writes, you just have to find it. So yes, it's similar to philosophy, except philosophy is looking for that in everything, not just writing.

But pretty much every other subject, in the way it's taught, teaches that order is king and you're lucky to have found it at all in all that entropy and to ask "why" in the philosophical sense is being ungrateful to the almighty Order because the Order is not going to tell you. We don't say there's a God-given purpose to the direction an electron spins or the derivative of a certain function or to certain grammatical rules. They just are and you're supposed to be satisfied with that, and what you believe philosophically is your belief alone. Why should what we know of how animals and plants came to be the way they are now differ from the order of current teaching?

Philosophy is basically an attempt to move beyond mere opinion to a more generalized truth. And philosophy or theory is the key to interpreting the facts concerning the origins of life(or anything for that matter). Theory is the form, while facts are the content so to speak. It actually maybe of interest to know that in terms of cosmological theories, there's not much new under the Sun really. For example, the Big Bang can be said to be an example of Stoic metaphysics.
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
7,312
MBTI Type
INTJ
So, what are your thoughts, Peguy?

The Catholic church, when under the wisdom of Pope John Paul II, embraced evolution as "more than mere hypothesis" in 1996.

How this applies to the layman remain to be seen; yet, papal identity has accepted evolution - and not Creationism - as the relevant architecture for our biological heritage.

I think you may be misinterpreting Peguy. I think he fully believes in evolution. He's merely saying that ID has legitimacy beyond and despite the fact that it has been co-opted by fundamentalists in an effort to force religion into schools. It's an interesting philosophy, and one that I've always found to have merit. It's a shame that it's been sullied by its association with extremists, because now rational thinking people feel compelled to dismiss it out of hand.
 

Polaris

AKA Nunki
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
2,529
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Intelligent design is barely even a philosophical idea, much less a scientific one. It has trouble qualifying as a philosophical idea because all it does is make note of the fact that the universe appears orderly to most of us. It's nearly as mundane an observation as the fact that the sun travels across the sky every day. For this same reason--the fact that it simply makes note of a basic property of reality--we can never test intelligent design; any experiment's outcome would at the very least be consistent with there being order in reality.

Nor is there any reason to test intelligent design to begin with, since it's quite obvious, if you think about it, what order springs from. Compare the simplicity of the world as it appeared to you while a small child with the complexity of the world now that you've spent many years in it. The universe became more orderly, and the only thing that changed was your habits thought. How precisely your habits of thought changed was through a process of learning--that is, picking up experience and carrying it along with you like a bundle. With that experience in hand, it became possible to make comparisons between the present and the past, and then to store these comparisons away in the form of abstractions, which not only allow you a sense of the future but are also the source of the order through which you view reality. To the extent that such stored abstractions are absent, reality lacks order. So if for the sake of illustration we imagine a reality without consciousness, that reality would exist in a state of pure chaos. Which is to say that order is completely "subjective," in the sense that it depends on a human mind and not a creator created by that human mind.
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
I think you may be misinterpreting Peguy. I think he fully believes in evolution. He's merely saying that ID has legitimacy beyond and despite the fact that it has been co-opted by fundamentalists in an effort to force religion into schools. It's an interesting philosophy, and one that I've always found to have merit. It's a shame that it's been sullied by its association with extremists, because now rational thinking people feel compelled to dismiss it out of hand.

I remember from an earlier discussion that Peguy was a proponent of Darwinian-esque evolution.

I was just hoping he'd elaborate further on his stance for this particular thread as, at that point, he hadn't much weighed in.
 
Top