That bascially says that when a scientist denies that there is evidence of design in nature (which there is not) that he is being unscientific. <> That's classic Behe ID logic, and seemingly contrary to Catholic doctrine. Right?

Hmmm . . . No, I think that's wrong. But I also think this is another instance of poorly defined words and conflated ideas, and that even reading charitably, I have t think that the cardinal is culpable for the confusion in this line. If that soothes you any. ;)

There is evidence of design in nature. Nature itself, as an orderly system, is evidence of design, an indicator of a designer. But this is a philosophical argument, not scientific evidence, and Schonborg surely knows that. He shouldn't imply otherwise, and I think it's fair to say that he does.

On the other hand, his statement is technically correct. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.

Any system which denies or attempts to explain away a designer is ideology. True science doesn't try to do that.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

There is evidence of design in nature. Nature itself, as an orderly system, is evidence of design, an indicator of a designer. But this is a philosophical argument, not scientific evidence

Yes, thats philosophical. It's not evidence at all, at least in any of the common useages of the word.

Any system which denies or attempts to explain away a designer is ideology. True science doesn't try to do that.


That's not what he says. He says any system which denies that there is evidence of a designer is ideology. And that's simply not true, because there is no evidence of a designer. (And lets not say things like, well there is "philosophical evidence" because that's a bogus concept. Evidence is something observable that supports one idea over another)

---

_______________________________________________

He says any system which denies that there is evidence of a designer is ideology.

It is. (Understand that I'm not talking about empirical evidence.)

(And lets not say things like, well there is "philosophical evidence" because that's a bogus concept. Evidence is something observable that supports one idea over another)

No. I think you're definition of "evidence" is far too narrow. It is certainly not bogus to say that the existence of the material world is evidence of a Creator that transcends His Creation. It isn't scientific, empirical evidence, obviously. But it's an entirely valid proposition from a philosophical point of view.

I think I've used this example before, but what the heck: It's a fact that college educated people tend to be more politically liberal than high school graduates, right? That fact is evidence of something. It might be evidence that liberals are smarter than conservatives, or it might be evidence that kids get brainwashed by liberal college professors, or it might be evidence in support of some other idea. But it is evidence, and simply because it doesn't, by itself, support one idea over the other doesn't make it not evidence.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

No. I think you're definition of "evidence" is far too narrow.

No "my" definition is the standard one, and frankly, I think people should stick to it.

ev·i·dence A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.

What makes a thing helpful in forming a conclusion? The fact that it supports that conclusion over alternate conclusions. Scientific evidence fits this. Legal evidence fits this. Whatever sort of "philosphical evidence" you claim exists does not fit this. It is certainly not bogus to say that the existence of the material world is evidence of a Creator that transcends His Creation.

Yes it is...see above.



It isn't scientific, empirical evidence, obviously. But it's an entirely valid proposition from a philosophical point of view.


I agree it's a valid philosophical proposition. But that doesn't make it evidence. It's like a lot of data that I get in the lab - quite a bit of it is consistent with a certain hypothesis but not really evidence in support of it.



It's a fact that college educated people tend to be more politically liberal than high school graduates, right? That fact is evidence of something

Not every fact is evidence - but the phenomenon you bring up could be evidence (albeit very weak) against the idea that conservatives are smarter than liberals, or that college professors tend to be conservative, etc... But this is fairly irrelevant to your assertion that a thing which provides no support for a conclusion can somehow be evidence for that conclusion.

To get back to biology, scientists say that similar body plans among many animals is evidence for common decent. It's certainly what the theory of common decent would predict. Others say it's evidence for a Creator. That's a false statement - an omnipotent creator need not create similar organisms, there's no reason to think God couldnt have created widely divergent creatures with 4 heads, or no discernable cells, etc... Similar body plans does not offer any support one way or the other, and therefore is not evidence for or against a Creator.

Main point to all of this - the observable world is not evidence for a Creator, but is certainly consistent with one. The cardinal could have said any system which tries to deny a Creator, or deny that our world is inconsistent with a Creator is ideology. And I would have agreed. I think the word "evidence" was deliberately put in there and reflects the "urging and ...assistance of Mark Ryland, a philantropist and champion of the ID movement."

---

_______________________________________________

The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place.

What makes a thing helpful in forming a conclusion? The fact that it supports that conclusion over alternate conclusions.

Interesting example you gave there. Is the fact of a broken window evidence that a burglary has taken place? Or might it be evidence that the wind blew a branch through the glass? Or might it be evidence that there's a gang of kids missing a baseball? Or might it be evidence of mere vandalism?

It might be evidence of any of those things. Or none of those things. In the absence of other supporting evidence, one can claim that it's evidence of a burglary, and one might turn out to be right. In the absence of any other evidence, I'm just as free to argue that some kid hit a foul ball through the window. Who's right or wrong? Unless we have some way to gather more evidence, we'll never know for a scientific certainty, and I can continue to claim that the burglary theory is wrong. But I cannot legitimately claim that there isn't evidence for it.

In a similar way, the existence of the universe, and the order displayed in nature is evidence. I argue that it's evidence of a designer. Some argue it's evidence of an eternal material world. One can argue about which conclusion the evidence best supports, if any, but one cannot deny that there is evidence.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Interesting example you gave there.

It was the example on dicitonary.com. I'm not sure I would have picked that one myself.

In a similar way, the existence of the universe, and the order displayed in nature is evidence. I argue that it's evidence of a designer.

OK, we'll agree to disagree on that one.

---

_______________________________________________

OK, we'll agree to disagree on that one.

Fair enough. I'm curious where you stand on my original point, though- that religion doesn't necessarily lead to abandoning the search for knowledge. Encouraged at all by the position of the Catholic Church on evolution for the past hundred+ years?

Or after ruining Galileo, is everything else too little, too late? ;)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I'm curious where you stand on my original point, though- that religion doesn't necessarily lead to abandoning the search for knowledge.

What, you didn't see my post from 8 days ago? ;)

"It doesn't necessarily of course, but I think for a fair number of people it does. Which is too bad... "Encouraged at all by the position of the Catholic Church on evolution for the past hundred+ years?


Yes. I hope that the Cardinal's essay is merely confusing terminology and not a shift towards ID "science"

---

_______________________________________________

It doesn't necessarily of course, but I think for a fair number of people it does. Which is too bad

Well, now that you mention it, I do remember that post. And I remember agreeing with it, too. What bothers me, and should bother anyone who considers themselves a believer, is the implication that religion is somehow more likely than other factors to lead to abandoning the search for knowledge. It just is not so.

Like I said way back, some people hold religious beliefs that they think are incompatible with what science tells us. Personally, I think those people should reexamine what they believe about the nature of reality.

Other people might hold religious beliefs, and thus feel that the knowledge which science accords is not ultimately all that important. That's kind of a shame, too, but I can't help but feel a certain sympathy for this view. Though I don't share it. (And it isn't hostile to the claims of science, either.)

But while that is the case for some people, it's also the case that some people just don't trust the claims of science because scientists have sometimes made big grand claims that haven't panned out. And it's sometimes the case that people just don't care. Which is, I suppose, equally a shame, but I don't often hear any wailing over it.

I hope that the Cardinal's essay is merely confusing terminology and not a shift towards ID "science"

See, it's just that kind of reactionary paranoia that can be irritating, and which is at least unhelpful in bridging whatever gap might exist between science and religion. Here you have a Church that's consistently, from the beginning, held that evolution might have happened, and has been as explicit as it's possible to be that it's a matter for biology. I mean, I gave you citations from 1909, 1950, 1996, and 2004. One cardinal from Vienna writes a muddled essay for the NY Times, which is further muddled in translation, and you're about to sound the alarms about a shift towards ID "science." It gives the impression that you're not dealing with religion on a good faith basis, jhc, and if you're not willing to do that, I think you stand a good chance of alienating people who you need not.

What's more, why is it that you never step in to correct the excessive claims of evolution made by some people in here? How many times has someone claimed that it shows that man is no different from an animal, and that there's no God? I've lost count, and that proposition is at least as wrong as the opposite, no? Why is it you never jump in to defend science on those occassions?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

What bothers me, and should bother anyone who considers themselves a believer, is the implication that religion is somehow more likely than other factors to lead to abandoning the search for knowledge. It just is not so.

Well I'm not sure what factors are more or less likely to lead to the abandoning the search for knowledge. Religion need not be one of these factors, although a fundamentalist approach to religion can certainly be a factor.

Other people might hold religious beliefs, and thus feel that the knowledge which science accords is not ultimately all that important. That's kind of a shame, too, but I can't help but feel a certain sympathy for this view. Though I don't share it.

I have no problem if certain people aren't concerned with science as long as they're not actually impeding the furtherment of science.

It gives the impression that you're not dealing with religion on a good faith basis, jhc, and if you're not willing to do that, I think you stand a good chance of alienating people who you need not.


I think that's a bit harsh. According to your logic, Kennetth Miller and Stephen Barr (both Catholics) are not acting in good faith either. The Cardinal's essay contained language that sounded a lot like Behe-style ID, and Barr's piece says that the essay was written with the assistance of a pro-ID philathrpist. So yeah, that's going to raise an eyebrow. I don't think writing that I hope it was just vague terminology is confrontational.

What's more, why is it that you never step in to correct the excessive claims of evolution made by some people in here? How many times has someone claimed that it shows that man is no different from an animal, and that there's no God? I've lost count, and that proposition is at least as wrong as the opposite, no? Why is it you never jump in to defend science on those occassions?

What excessive claims of evolution? I stay out of the there is a God/there is no God threads because they are especially inane. And I'm not sure I understand your last sentence at all... "science" doesn't say there is no God.
*edit: here is Kenneth Miller's complete reply to the Schonborg essay - really well said IMO

http://www.millerandlevine.com/...holic/op-ed-krm.html

---

_______________________________________________