#22530: Orac — 04/20  at  08:58 PM
Although not quite an atheist, I spent 8/12 years in Catholic schools as well, and they taught evolution in science class without once mentioning God. Pope Benedictine is highly unlikely to change that.

#22543: dp — 04/20  at  11:01 PM
Orac (#21) and theophylact (#20) summed it up best I reckon. From what I can tell, PBXVI isn't going to change any of the progress PJII made in terms of acknowledging evolution as a reality.

Actually, this should be cause for celebration. What they are basically saying is that scientists know what they are doing with science and it should be left up to them. The Catholic church's (and other churches') responsiblity is to work out how these new science discoveries impact on their faith.

By the same token, scientists aren't the ones who should be running the church, especially scientists who don't actually believe in God.

There is nothing contradictory in letting science do its thing and accepting modern scientific consensus and yet maintaining a faith in a God who kicked the whole process off and establish the laws which govern the process of life and evolution.

It all had to start somewhere, which is why the 'big bang' theory was such a big step in science. 'God' is the church's response to the question 'how did it all start?'. PZ, you are more than welcome to have a different answer. But neither position affects at all the ability to conduct science and figure out how it all worked since it started.

The church shouldn't be afraid of scientists conducting science, and scientists shouldn't be afraid of Church conducting church. That's why PJII's statement above is actually a glimmer of light in all this.

In response to June, I believe in God, but I certainly don't suscribe to ID. I do believe in intelligence and design however (in lower case). I believe humans have the intelligence to figure out the design of things even as apparently complex as a flagellum. I also believe that understanding something in depth in no way undermines its specialness or 'cool design factor'. ID as a philosophical construct is useless because its too narrowly focused (nevermind all the other reasons why it doesnt help our understanding of the world).

#22544: dp — 04/20  at  11:08 PM
Incidentally, I had an encounter with Dembski years ago when he toured down-under promoting this brand-new concept of 'ID'.

I knew nothing about what it was then, but went to talk to him afterwards about the myriad of problems with simply saying 'i don't understand it, therefore it has to be God'. I was looking for a reasoned dialogue with an intelligent counterpart, but got completely brushed off until his minder explained why I was worth listening to. He then went in to a long pre-prepared hyper-defensive spiel that left me none the wiser.

It was my first exposure to ID, and it certainly put me right off it from the start.

#22545: — 04/20  at  11:19 PM
I think people are misunderstanding me. I do believe in evolution. I'm just saying that the question of whether it is a willed process is unanswerable by science. "Evolution is as much a fact as gravity" - absolutely. "It's a fact that there is no intelligence/purpose behind it" - uh, no it's not. That's a question beyond the purview of science.

"Insipid logic games?" Yeah, see, that's what I mean about there being other conversations than the scientific.

#22546: dp — 04/20  at  11:21 PM
I'm with you on that one Knemon...

#22547: — 04/20  at  11:41 PM
Well, thanks.
I'm not saying *I* necessarily think there is a guiding intelligence. I'm not - what did the earlier poster say - a "backwoods" type (cute). I'm not a Catholic or evangelical fundamentalist; I've never even been baptized. But I'm willing to accept the possibility that there is more than the material/empirical ... which seems to threaten some people. S'all I'm saying.

#22550: Ken Cope — 04/20  at  11:55 PM
It's a fact that evolution is a theory depending upon not a shred of teleology. You want to discuss Willed Processes, you're going to be having something other than a scientific conversation unless you've got something other than belief to bring to the table. You're welcome to believe that such conversations are all transcendental and beyond the purview of science; whatever gets you through the night. I can't tell what makes Thor any worse than the IPU other than by the behavior of their believers and I'm not interested in whatever it is that insipid trolls worship.

#22552: Ken Cope — 04/21  at  12:02 AM
Threaten some people? Get over yourself. An agnostic believes nothing for which there is no evidence. To quote Dawkins, "Bertrand Russell used a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars for the same didactic purpose. You have to be agnostic about the teapot, but that doesn't mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as being on all fours with its non-existence."

#22554: dp — 04/21  at  12:12 AM
My point is that regardless of whether you believe evolution was a 'willed process' or not, you can still study that process through science.

What the young-earth creationist crowd and dembskiists want is for us to ignore what science has revealed and continues to reveal about the process.

In that context, the Catholic church should be thanked for letting scientists do what they (and only they) do best. It is the churches' problem how to reconcile that scientific knowledge with their faith (or whether it is reconcilible).

#22556: Pete — 04/21  at  12:18 AM
This is going off-topic - no more mention of the pope or Dembski here - but I'd like to take you up on this, Knemon.

The positing of an "intelligence behind" evolution has a logical emptiness that puts it well inside the realm of things we ought to disbelieve. There is an infinite class of such things. One could just as easily say "It's not a fact that there are no green trombone-playing Finnish-speaking stamp-collecting hermit crabs on Mars." Well, actually, yes it is a fact that there are none. The proposition that there are such entities has nowhere to hang itself on in our framework of the world -- for it to be true, the overwhelming majority of what we hold to be true would have to be false. That’s why we disbelieve this kind of universal negative, instead of remaining agnostic toward it.

You are using the word "fact" here in a very restricted sense, which, interestingly, usually only comes up when deities are being discussed. Some people want to “leave the door” open for things like deities - but that means you have to leave the door open to a host of other things that in practice no one would even consider.

When you say there may have been an "intelligence behind" evolution, you make a statement with a counterfactual implication. In this case, the implication is this: "Had the intelligence not been behind evolution, things would have turned out differently." (If you are not willing to claim this, then your statement about intelligence being “behind” evolution loses all meaning - it can be a phrase you like to say or like the sound of, but what could it possibly mean?) (--this is a long post, so if you answer anything in it, I would like it to be this: what really are you envisioning, in concrete terms, when you say there could be an “intelligence behind” evolution?)

With this in mind, here is why it is a fact that there is no intelligence behind evolution.

Imagine a machine that carries 1000 billiard balls up a conveyor belt and drops them into a rapidly spinning box. The balls bounce around chaotically as they are dropped in. Finally the box stops spinning and the balls are let out of the box one by one. You record the order of the balls as they come out. It is random. If there is a paradigm case of a process with no intelligence behind it, this is very close to it. That there is no intelligence behind the sequence of balls is a fact in as good a standing as any other fact I am aware of.

The thing about evolution is -- at its most basic level, the processes involved are no different than in this example. However, instead of chaotically bouncing balls, we have objects that can replicate themselves. From the simple beginning of a self-replicating object, and the dumb laws of physics, we got... all this. Saying there might be an “intelligence behind” it is really no more sensible than saying there was an “intelligence behind” the sequence of balls that came out. You have precisely as little reason to posit intelligence for evolution, as you do for the billiard balls.

No, of course I’m not saying evolution is “random” - I’m saying it is mechanical. We see intelligence in evolved entities in retrospect because of the entirely mechanical workings of natural selection. Intelligence is produced by, not “behind”, evolution.

#22559: — 04/21  at  12:39 AM
"whatever it is that insipid trolls worship."

(a) I don't really worship anything, as I said.
(b) Yes, you do seem a little threatened. I read this snarling as a sign of "issues." But hey, whatever gets YOU through the night.

"You want to discuss Willed Processes, you're going to be having something other than a scientific conversation"

Yes, precisely. I believe that's what I said in the first place. Don't bring "creation science" into a biology class; don't draw ethical conclusions from biology.

#22562: — 04/21  at  01:03 AM
Pete - thank you for addressing me with respect. I may indeed be an "insipid troll" but that's not the role I'm trying to play.

"logical emptiness" - But logical emptiness can be spiritual fullness. Logic and empiricism used in tandem form one tool - a very powerful tool - for understanding and affecting the world. But they are not the only lenses through which we should be looking.

"Intelligence is produced by, not “behind”, evolution"

This actually is much closer to what I think.

I even think this is the truest meaning of "in the beginning, there was the word" (logos) - that is, where we can transcend our material nature/evolutionary history is in our (evolved) capacity for self-reflection, abstraction, signification.

"then your statement about intelligence being “behind” evolution loses all meaning - it can be a phrase you like to say or like the sound of, but what could it possibly mean?) (--this is a long post, so if you answer anything in it, I would like it to be this: what really are you envisioning, in concrete terms, when you say there could be an “intelligence behind” evolution?)"

Well, that's just it. It's not a concrete thing - by definition it must be prior/external to the observable "world" - so any attempt to capture it in the terms we use to describe rocks, atoms, fish or monkeys is going to fall short. Long before the scientific method was developed Augustine, e.g., was grappling with these issues.

And if I like to say it, like the sound of it, why is that not enough? I guess it depends (shades of Clinton!) what your definition of "mean" is ... is science the only arbiter of "meaning"?

I'm agnostic on a good day - atheist on a bad - but I don't understand why some people react so nastily to the very possibility of something beyond the material. A lot of that seems to be scientists patting themselves on the back for being in the smart-kids' club, and it's just all sort of sad. These issues ("metaphysics" broadly read) are there and they're not going to go away ...

"More in heaven and earth
Than is dreamt of in your philosophy."

#22567: — 04/21  at  02:43 AM
Knemon, I agree that ethics should be taught - in sunday school, in church, and in the home. Not in public schools.

#22568: — 04/21  at  03:03 AM
Public schools are precisely where ethics need to be taught the most.

No, not "ethics" in the sense of "stop it or you'll go blind."

Ethics in the sense of, e.g., "human rights": what is this concept? What are some historical sources of it/arguments for it? Some derive it from religion - others from a Rawlsian social contract.

What is a society? a state? how do they interact? Why do we (most of the time) coexist peacefully instead of cracking open each others' skulls and feasting on the succulent goo within? How can we minimize said cracking and feasting?

Private ethics, religion, "family values" (man I hate that phrase), are all well and good but civics are much more important. If we banish discussions of right and wrong from the "public" (state-funded) realm, then we deserve exactly the kind of society we're getting.

I realize I've taken this thread way off-topic. To sum up: evolution true, ethics necessary, materialism can be as dangerous as fundamentalism.

The end, by me.

#22600: tristero — 04/21  at  11:23 AM
"If we banish discussions of right and wrong from the "public" (state-funded) realm, then we deserve exactly the kind of society we're getting."

Hmm... I suppose when you think about it, religiously correct societies like Salem in the 17th century, Europe in the Middle Ages, etc, etc etc. were far more morally clear, from a certain standpoint. But I'll take a culture that tolerates public exposure of Janet Jackson's mammary over one that burns witches any time. The fact that her poor breast has become a political/moral hot potato is distressing.

But back to topic:

The question is why Ratzinger would want to open up the creationist can of worms without some concession from non-Catholics. Others have noted he wants one Christian church with himself at the head. It is very unlikely that American Christianists are so hot to trot for creationism that they will accede to Papism. But it's also true these people are nuts so one can't be sure what they'll do. Maybe they will once more agree to genuflect to Rome if that means they can teach lies to Americans.

But I can't imagine that BXVI would care enough to contradict what JP II said about evolution, unless there was something in it for him. Excuse me, the Church.

#22601: Ken Cope — 04/21  at  11:28 AM
Godless volution is dangerous fundamentalist materialism that won't stop the brain-sucking zombies that lurch among us. See, we're right back on-topic to Papa Ratzi.

Pete, it's sad that even after saying it as slowly and sweetly as possible, with vivid word pictures, only the tone of your voice is noted and taken as the cue to go right back to rocking the supernatural hobby horse, urging Straussian public lies to keep the unwashed in check.

I'll wait and see if any forthcoming ex cathedra pronouncements on evolution change the science content in parochial schools. Dembski would seem to be getting ready to celebrate the death of Gould's NOMA, since to him, science isn't about who's right, but who is in power. With one Magisterium, what's to overlap?

#22606: — 04/21  at  12:17 PM
It's a Straussian public lie that we shouldn't crack open each others' heads?

You are living proof that materialism can be just as nasty and paranoid as fundamentalism. Why for you got so much anger and contempt?

"But I'll take a culture that tolerates public exposure of Janet Jackson's mammary over one that burns witches any time."

Me too. But it'd be nice if we were educating citizens to be able to explain with some sort of argument, even one that admits non-materialist (gasp!) premises, why we should care about each other and the public good.

Isn't there some possibility of a third way between Salem and Postmodernia?

#22611: — 04/21  at  12:46 PM
No.

Universalizng, salvationist monotheisms must be the enemies of freedom.

#22612: Ken Cope — 04/21  at  12:49 PM
The Straussian public lie invokes fear of God to discourage brain feasting, because it doesn't trust enlightened self interest and a social contract to achieve the same end.

I have contempt for stale arguments and smug misrepresentation.

Nobody here should have any trouble with non-material premises. I read as much science fiction and fantasy as the next geek, I just don't think there's much to be said for teaching the Silmarrillion in a history classroom.

There are many alternatives to Salem and Postmodernia; perhaps you can stop arguing from a position that resembles the worst of both?

#22619: — 04/21  at  02:04 PM
"it doesn't trust enlightened self interest and a social contract to achieve the same end"

Well, look around you - are we getting any closer to that end?

I want some sort of lie because I'd like to see a return to the concept of the common good. It's almost completely gone, and we're left with government of Enron, by FOX, and for the bottom line.

If you think we can get out of this mess we're in without a lie, any lie - well, I hope you're right. But I'm a glass-half-full sorta guy.

#22623: — 04/21  at  02:17 PM
arrgh. half-*empty*.

#22624: Ken Cope — 04/21  at  02:24 PM
"Our first business will be to supervise the making of fables and legends, rejecting all which are unsatisfactory; and we shall induce nurses and mothers to tell their children only those which we have approved." -- Plato, The Republic

So liar, which facts are first for your bonfire?

#22627: — 04/21  at  02:42 PM
Can't the lie be an add-on, not a carve-out? But if I have to burn something:

The fact (if it is such, and all y'all scientists seem pretty sure it is) that the perceptible world is all there is, that we are but stochastic agglomerations of billiard balls ... this is a fact that we might wanna leaven with some little white lies.

Many people were frightened by Darwin, and especially his bastard child "Social Darwinism" (not saying it's his fault, but people sure ran with that ball) because they saw where it could lead.

For instance, in the Scopes monkey trial of great fame, the objection wasn't just that evolution was being taught, but also that pernicious racial/eugenist theories were in the text.

You might argue that we're past all that, that science is only going to lead us in positive directions from now on. Again, I hope you're right - but what in human history makes you confident about that?

And when I say I want ethics in the schools, I don't mean they have to be taught as revealed truth. But a little instruction on the history of these ideas, and the ends to which they've been put, could be a good thing. Or?

The ID movement creeps me out too. I want that stuff kept out of the science classes. I think we agree more than we disagree, and where we part is in our relative optimism/pessimism about the dispensability of the lie.

#22629: — 04/21  at  03:16 PM
We are not billiard balls; we are organizations of quantum field processes.

And, most scientists are painfully aware of his/her prospects (or lack there of) for understanding "what's really out there" (i.e. beyond scientific instrumentation).

If it bothers you that we're just a bunch of well-organized waves, that color probably doesn't actually exist, that there is no such thing as "touching" something (or macroscopic "phases", for that matter)...

...then please don't shoot the messenger.

If this causes the "meaning of life" to drain away, and if empirical science is stepping on the toes of your god, then it's either time to re-evaluate one's perspective on that god, or time to re-evaluate the god, itself.

Or, if you would like to make up a little white lie, that is perfectly fine with me - we all do it some time or another.

Granted, of course, not all of us choose to lie when constructing one's core beliefs about the Universe.

#22631: — 04/21  at  03:28 PM
The "billiard balls" were imported from an earlier post.

Materialism can be dangerous. Popular, sub- or pseudo-scientific theories of evolution (biological or social, Nazi or Marxist) have led to atrocities in the past.

Sometimes the white lies are all that keep us from the abyss.