Some evolutionists have concluded that life sure is complicated. From the Telegraph:
But these virtual landscapes have turned out to be surprisingly barren. Prof Mark Bedau of Reed College in Portland, Oregon, will argue at this week's meeting - the 11th International Conference on Artificial Life - that despite the promise that organisms could one day breed in a computer, such systems quickly run out of steam, as genetic possibilities are not open-ended but predefined. Unlike the real world, the outcome of computer evolution is built into its programming.His conclusion? Although natural selection is necessary for life, something is missing in our understanding of how evolution produced complex creatures. By this, he doesn't mean intelligent design - the claim that only God can light the blue touch paper of life - but some other concept. [No, of course, mustn't have God; bad manners -- RD] "I don't know what it is, nor do I think anyone else does, contrary to the claims you hear asserted," he says. But he believes ALife will be crucial in discovering the missing mechanism.
Dr Richard Watson of Southampton University, the co-organiser of the conference, echoes his concerns. "Although Darwin gave us an essential component for the evolution of complexity, it is not a sufficient theory," he says. "There are other essential components that are missing."
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
MH, the August 9, 2008 11:15 PM comment was mine.
It seems you missed my poorly worded point which is that the Big Bang itself is speculation, i.e., speculation encompasses more than merely what preceded it, as you worded it. For example, we don't know what, if anything, went bang.
No one doubts that the universe is expanding, but that may be just the way God went about creating the universe. Neither of us knows, so all we can do is speculate based on the evidence. Personally, I don't have any reason to doubt an expanding universe which was hotter and denser in the past. I'm happy to take the word of science on matters of that sort.
That's fine, where would we be without authentic science? But it's irrelevant to my point about the stupendous arrogance of those "scientists" who claim that one must be a trained, professional this or that to understand that the universe and everything in it self-generated. The truth is that they say such irrational things because (1) some can't admit there may be a Creator and (2) it has become obligatory to say such things, even if they do believe in a Creator, because otherwise their grants and positions would vanish. It really is that simple and venal. It's no secret.
You say, "I'm not sure what you mean by macro evolution's claims are proven false. However, even if evolution is false that doesn't prove the case for Intelligent Design."
That IS the case for the scientific aspects of Intelligent Design; that macro evolution (e.g.,evolution as generator of the human eye) is scientifically impossible. My understanding of the scientific aspects of ID (and that's all I'm concerned with vis-a-vis any theological aspects) is that accepted laws of science (e.g., order can not result from chaos; B can not exist unless A precedes it; nothing never equals something; etc.) are applied to the selectivity/randomness/building block theories of macro evolution to prove them false. What in heaven's name is wrong with that?! That kind of challenge should be welcomed by authentic scientists. The science in ID can stand on its own without regard to a God-designer. I am not saying ID proves the existence of God. That's a different ID debate; a Creationist debate about which I know little.
R Hampton, perhaps you forgot what I Posted on August 9, 2008 1:41 AM, so here it is again:
"You completely loose me when you say, 'the Catholic Church via the Pontifical Academy of Science endorses the scientific view that the eye, the flagellum, the immune system, et al. - are all products of evolution.' I've never heard that, nor is that what the Church or the Pontifical Academy of Science ever said.
The Church doesn't make any claim to know any more than you do whether Adam and Eve's bodies (aside from their souls) were created in the form of modern man or as SpongeBobs which evolved into modern man. Please give me a Pontifical Academy of Science quote to back up your statement."
I'm still waiting, so, no, I still don't believe you.
I did. Twice.
1. Try reading: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2008/BOOKLET_10.pdf
2. Consult a dictionary: 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.
The Four-Hundredth Anniversary of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences 1603-2003, Session, 9 November 2003
THE MEANING OF THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Nicola Cabibbo
The turning point came with the Motu Proprio In Multis Solaciis by Pius XI, issued on 28th October 1936, which provided for the transformation of the Academy of the New Lincei into the present Pontifical Academy of Sciences. This was not a simple change of names: the Academy was given a new membership, chosen among the most prominent scientists of the time, and was assigned a lofty task, that of becoming the Scientific Senate of the Catholic Church. No longer a center of expertise for the Pontifical States, the Academy would become a center at the service of the Roman Pontiff, and in general of the Catholic Church, in the performance of His pastoral mission. The Academy would study the progress of science, and its philosophical implications, with particular attention to the consequences of the new scientific discoveries for the progress of the human condition. The restored Academy would establish, at the highest possible level, an open channel of communication between the Catholic Church and the scientific community.
The Academy is under the direct protection of the ruling Pope but it enjoys remarkable freedom in establishing its agenda and organizing its activities. In aiming for the best possible representation of the scientific world, the membership is chosen without regard to religious beliefs, and includes many Nobel Prize winners – about thirty at the present time – and a few winners of the prestigious Field Medal in mathematics. We are particularly proud of the fact that some of our members have received a Nobel Prize after being nominated to the Academy, the most recent being Professor Ahmed Zewail, a native of Egypt, Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1999. (pg 117)
Any scientist who uses the Abrahamic god (which is no more proven than any other supernatural idea) or such to explain gaps in current knowledge isn't a very good scientist. Attributing every mystery to "God" won't accomplish much in the scientific field.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.