Intelligent Design strikes out at the Vatican

It does have an effect on the political side of it, though. One less hat in the ring on the wrong side...

When the College of Cardinals elected Ratzinger to succeed John Paul II, they chose one of their most conservative and senior colleagues. (He was one of few surviving cardinals appointed by Paul VI, John Paul's predecessor, rather than John Paul himself.) Those reactionary Catholics who celebrated the elevation of their right-wing hero are disappointed that Pope Benny Hex didn't immediately reinstate the Latin mass, go back to the Baltimore catechism, and declare null and void the reforms of Vatican II. But of course he would not -- because that would be a radical move, and Ratzinger is anything but radical. He is very conservative, yes, but will move at the glacial pace that best suits the most ossified bureaucracy this side of imperial China. It's kind of funny. He's biding his time, but isn't likely to have that much time to spare.

I will be very surprised indeed if the tenure of Benedict XVI is anything other than a slow-motion papacy, a snail's pace rush away from modernism, moving the church a couple of inches closer to the dark side. If that denies the IDiots a new ally, so much the better!

The Catholic Church - such an important authority on science! I await their every pronouncement with baited breath!

This definitely falls into the dog-bites-man category: Pope believes in God.

Since this was a gathering of Ratz' old grad students, how long before Dembski and O'Leary start railing about atheistic dogmatism pervading academia?

God's rottweiler is gonna bite your ass. As will he mine, if I ever get my movie made.

Science has a thing about it, too. they quote Schuster as saying

The pope ... listened to my talk very carefully and asked very good questions at the end.

incidently, they describe Schuster as a "chemist", alkali metals and all.

"Backing a form of theistic evolution, while still insupportable nonsense"

Now, I have no sympathy for the Vatican and the credibility I admit its authority on any subject whatsoever is in the negative; but I think that's overstating the wrongness of the position.

Theistic evolution is, scientifically speaking, foolish and motivated by superstition. However, it seems to me that in these general terms that it agrees with the facts as observed and is coherent.

It's not science, but it's not nonsense.

(isn't that peculiar in itself, that they'd have a conference on the status of evolution in the church, and only have one informed attendee?):

Why not? They have celibate men doing marriage preparation courses.

isn't that peculiar in itself, that they'd have a conference on the status of evolution in the church, and only have one informed attendee?

Not necessarily. If the purpose of the seminar was to decide the truth of evolution, then there would definitely need to be more scientists represented. If evolution was presumed true and the purpose was to decide on the proper theological response to it, then having a plurality of theologians wouldn't be surprising.

Vatican rejection of ID is no surprise. If for no other reason, it would be dismissed by the Catholic Church because it proposes that not everything in the universe has been designed.

I am concerned that IDists will use the rejection in passing to reinforce their "no-really-we're-science-not-religion" talking point.

The only problem I have with theistic evolution, Numad, is it assumes a need for a force behind scientific principles, which has always baffled me. The existence of scientific law is a stumbling block for most religious people, in that they HAVE to know who created the law, almost like it was an idea that was written down somewhere and thus someone had to write it. How does one counter such an argument? Ockham doesn't seem to help, as all the jerks seem to have seen Contact. And nothing throws them off more than name-calling.

ID is complete bullshit, obviously. And theistic evolution can't be supported except on belief. I find myself wanting to be okay with the idea, which kind of scares me. Theism and science have no place being tied together.

Well, let them run back to the "no-really-we're-not-fundie-ly" talking point, then. Good, I say.

There are more American YECs than IDers and they're getting impatient with the "It's not necessarily God" argument. William Dembski admits himself that young earth creationism is much better funded than ID is. Apparently Dembski thinks he can sic the YECs on the "Darwinists" in order to [Nazi allusion alert] beat us communists back with his National Socialists, but he's out of his mind to think that he can control them. ID is crumbling, YECism regrettably is not, but their claim to "science" is their weakest point.

the think that irks me is that some Catholics actually look to the Vatican for guidance in such matters. i mean, people don't go to a barbershop to get a lorry repaired.

it seems to me the Church like everyone needs to adapt their interpretation to what science knows, not limit scientific interpretations to what's consistent with doctrine.

maybe Pope Bene-Rat is trying to adapt. or, as i've said before, maybe it's all just politics.

All of this will come to nothing. They'll have their conclave, bitch about extreme atheistic "darwinism" applied inappropiately, and affirm that evolution was god's way of doing stuff. No mention of ID. Dembski's blog of mutants and the DI will find a way to pronounce it a victory, and AIG will still build their silly museum. The pope does have the power to kick dembski's ass, tho. Not that he would do it.

Theistic evolution is, scientifically speaking, foolish and motivated by superstition. However, it seems to me that in these general terms that it agrees with the facts as observed and is coherent.It's not science, but it's not nonsense.

Well, here is the rub. It IS nonsense if you don't accept an article of faith, that there is a God who either 1) created the laws of nature (and by extention, the rules of evolution), and/or 2) positively interfered with nature by being the "cause" of particular positive mutations that led to the creation of man while such event was indistinguishable from any other "positive" mutation.

In other words, just like ID, if you accept a God who can cause miracles, then God can (and probably did) influence life on earth.

The only difference between ID and theistic evolution is that the ID crowd has decided that they must PROVE God exists and thus have to remove the validity of anything that might be used against it, where-as theistic evolution keeps God as a matter of faith, in a God who's love and benevolence is reinforced by the majesty of existence and variety of life on earth.

put in such a way, both are nonsense, yet only one side needs to be political about it. the other sets a much more preferable realm of tolerance of atheistic interpretations - they can declare that atheism is bad and that using evolution to "prove" atheism is theologically correct is wrong, but they're just as grasping at the impossible to prove as the atheists would be.

you can't disprove God, though you can disprove the claims of those who believe.

thus, most faiths (including my own Episcopalian, and the concept of theistic evolution) present themselves in a way that "proof" is unnecessary and thus, disproof is impossible.

contrast that with the American right-wing evangelical that asserts that all that they know IS reality, including "the devil" (I personally have no belief in such a creature and think the church took Dante WAY the hell too seriously), "original sin" (give me a fucking break - every woman on the planet has to suffer, *monthly* because of a fucking snake lying through its teeth? that's as valid a piece of crap idea as pandora's box, which explains exactly the same truth - that the world is full of shit we'd rather not deal with but somehow we became conscious and aware of it all), and the idea that the second coming was to be treated literally (rather than the general accepted interpretation, which dominated history except at particular periods like the ends of millenia, that the judgement day was the day of your own death, not some end of the world for everybody idea).

my church taught none of those fears, and the episcopal church ( in general) hasn't since its separation from the Church of England, which itself had given up most of the 17th century superstitions by that time. (granted, *some* members of the church still have a problem with homosexuality, but the same overly-conservative side had a problem with women priests (which are now common, along with women bishops) and married priests (which is now the norm), and i figure they'll get over it. the only reason the american church and english church see it as a problem is because of political ties with more conservative missionary-derived churches in the 3rd world which might lose membership if they appear to be going back on their "word".)

it was only in college, when *forced* to know about such nonsense, that I realized how fortunate I was not to have been raised in such a hell on earth of living in fear of the different (like those of other colors or genders or religions or sexual lifestyles).

will PZ consider me foolish for still holding onto certain beliefs? probably. does it bother me? not really. if it did, i'd either have already condemned him or stopped reading him.

and neither is a reasonable thing to do.

*sigh*

I apologize for my profanity in the prior post if it offended. I kinda got emotionally wrapped up in it and forgot I was on a more public forum than my own blog.

GW: i think if regular readers of this blog had to choose between the sacred and the profane, it's a pretty good bet where they'd place themselves.

sorry that was addressed to Joe Shelby, not "GW". my fingers had an out of mind experience for a moment.

well, there's the "profane" and the "respectful". as much as atheist and secularists don't derive their morality, and as part of that respect for other people and the role of public discourse, from some "sacred" thing, they still have a sense of morality and respect that shouldn't be insulted intentionally.

(this being another of the right-wing-nutcases talking points I find ridiculous, that morality only derives from "God" or some other sacred source, rather than the reality that a society that isn't respectful of individuals within itself would likely self-destruct or become totalitarian, thus respect and politeness likely came into being in spite of religion, not because of it.)

I await their every pronouncement with baited breath!

That should be "bated" breath. But I am not alone, apparently. From Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban:

"The whole common room listened with baited breath."

Joe, your profanity most articulately encapsulated my thoughts on the matter.

Wasn't it John Wesley (or someone of a similar bent) who used the same language to describe his father's dealings with a good woman?

they can declare that atheism is bad and that using evolution to "prove" atheism is theologically correct is wrong, but they're just as grasping at the impossible to prove as the atheists would be.

you can't disprove God, though you can disprove the claims of those who believe.

thus, most faiths (including my own Episcopalian, and the concept of theistic evolution) present themselves in a way that "proof" is unnecessary and thus, disproof is impossible.

Hence the rub. Thinking one needs to disprove something misses the point. The atheist simply needs to assert you have no proof. If you can't posit any why would one believe in it?

It makes that position stronger if only by a little.

Actually if you look at all the catholic news the picture that is emerging is quite different. Tuesday one of the participants of the meeting, a português priest, Henrique de Noronha Galvão, was interviewed and what he said coupled with what I've beeen reading and what I read about Ratzinger's thoughts on evolution in prior writings allows me to make a very different prevision.

I would say the proceedings will have two readings, as basically everything that comes out from the Vatican. Meaning the prolix and dubious wording will be read differently according to the background of the reader. and the priests will give to their flocks the appropriate «lecture».

So people without a solid scientific background will only read that evolution and evolutionism are different things, and «Whereas creationism and evolutionism are incompatible in themselves, this is not so of creation and evolution, which are, instead, on two different levels, and are compatible.».

So (micro)evolution is a fact but evolutionism is an atheist «philosophy» made by scientists and should be recognized as only a «theory». But one should not fail in «recognising the limits and still unresolved problems» so evolutionism shouldn't be theached «as an ideology, as a kind of absolute, definitive and indisputable dogma.»

Obviously for someone with a scientific background this is a contradictio in terminus, but will mine the uneducated ones that will think that evolutionism is only a «guess» the atheist scientists are making out of the facts just to spite religion.

For the scientifically educated ones, that usually are not versed in philosophy, the stress will be that scientists are incompetent to propose a «philosophical» theory, an ID as Father Pascual pointed out "isn't a scientific question, but rather a philosophical one."

And as Fessio stresses the American debate over ID involves other factors, including separation of church and state. "Intelligent design isn't religion in terms of 'revealed truth.' It's also not science. It's natural philosophy. It's a possible conclusion of humans seeking sufficient reason for the order of universe."

If you guys don't know, «a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy">natural philosophy, philosophia naturalis, is the ancestor of science, disappeared with the onset of science and basically allows for supernatural causes...

Fessio agrees with Schönborn that Darwinists "are overstepping the bounds of science... If matter is all that there is, that's a philosophy."

So basically we atheist scientists are out od our depths when we propose something that is not a science, is philosophy. ID on the other hand is a proper natural philosophy theory so...

And I can bet the proceedings will be focused on philosophy rather then science, and on stressing that we are «overstepping the bounds of science» with evolutionism.

And the wording will also be ambiguous about macroevolution, that Ratzinger doesn't accept, as it denies the «immutable basis of all Christian anthropology» that the human person was created as 'the image and likeness' of God

You're right, George. It should be "bated" breath. It means you're holding your breath (or barely breathing) -- not lacing it with yummy smells that will lure prey to it.

Actually, Ratzinger's call on evolution is of great interest to me, because it's a key data point in nailing down his personal beliefs. And Ratzinger's personal beliefs will play a major role in how the Catholic Church affects society.

Ratzinger is apparently a Thomist (a student of St Thomas Aquinas, the great Catholic theologian). And Aquinas had one deeply important teaching: Truths discovered by reason could never ultimately conflict with the Catholic faith, because there was only one reality. To posit an irreconcilable conflict between reason and faith would in fact be a great heresy.

If the Church winds up backing some form of theistic evolution (no matter how halfheartedly), then we can conclude that Ratzinger is merely a very conservative Thomist--a man with unusual (and sometimes disagreeable) beliefs, but a man firmly dedicated to reason and open to physical evidence.

If, however, the Church winds up backing American-style creationism or ID, then we can no longer assume that Ratzinger is a conservative Thomist. Instead, we would need to assume that we were dealing with some sort of American-style fundamentalist, proud of his ignorance, and contemptuous of reason. St Thomas Aquinas considered such people dangerous, and so do I.

BTW: Peter Schuster is truly one of the most remarkable scientists and not just a molecular biologists but someone who studied physics and has a profound understanding of biology and especially chemistry as well.
He is a fascinating character and the austrian academy of sciences is lucky to have him now as the director.

That being said i can live with the God as long as he doesn`t mingle with science, that is as long as the church places their god at the very beginning of the universe that is about 10^-36 or favorably even further outside the cosmos. But i doubt the church will settle for that, but rather wanna see their god having a part in the molecular properties that led to replicating molecular in the first place. A position just as ignorant as ID.

But that the church isn`t interested in a competitor, especially not someone who just came along, is crystal clear,especially from an economic perspective - and that`s really all there is to it: ripping off the stupid.

A book that may interest you, "Follies of the Wise" by Frederick Crews.

"But after demolishing creationists, Crews gives peacemaking scientists their own hiding, reproving them for trying to show that there is no contradiction between science and theology. Regardless of what they say to placate the faithful, most scientists probably know in their hearts that science and religion are incompatible ways of viewing the world. Supernatural forces and events, essential aspects of most religions, play no role in science, not because we exclude them deliberately, but because they have never been a useful way to understand nature. Scientific "truths" are empirically supported observations agreed on by different observers. Religious "truths," on the other hand, are personal, unverifiable and contested by those of different faiths. Science is nonsectarian: those who disagree on scientific issues do not blow each other up. Science encourages doubt; most religions quash it."

"A mind that accepts both science and religion is thus a mind in conflict.Yet scientists, especially beleaguered American evolutionists, need the support of the many faithful who respect science. It is not politically or tactically useful to point out the fundamental and unbreachable gaps between science and theology. Indeed, scientists and philosophers have written many books (equivalents of Leibnizian theodicy) desperately trying to show how these areas can happily cohabit."

"Crews points out the dangers to the survival of our planet arising from a rejection of Darwinism. Such rejection promotes apathy towards overpopulation, pollution, deforestation and other environmental crimes: "So long as we regard ourselves as creatures apart who need only repent of our personal sins to retain heaven's blessing, we won't take the full measure of our species-wise responsibility for these calamities""

http://tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25347-2345445,00.html

Actually, the snake didn't lie, and he was the only one in that story who didn't.

Maybe he enticed Eve to disobey, but he didn't lie. Unlike God.

another way to view it is a mere look at a newborn. They are full of curiosity and spirited to explore their world, it is literally in our genes - perhaps even one of the most distinct features that made us so dominant and ubiqutious.

So in fact the only way to cease this curiosity is through neverending repition of training and individual thinking and questioning is wrong and associating this with unpleasent emotions. We are all explorers only society and especially religion impedes upon it.

All of this is more complex but the question why society works so well can IMHO only be explained with memetics.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics

"dialogue between faith and reason"

Hmm, what would that actually look like ...

Reason: Assume P.
Faith: I have faith that P.
Reason: Er, ok, now assume that, if P, then Q.
Faith: I love you as I love myself, and have faith that you speak truly.
Reason: Uh, well, it necessarily follows that Q.
Faith: Blasphemy! You will burn in hell for all eternity!

"Crews points out the dangers to the survival of our planet arising from a rejection of Darwinism."

The planet will survive (for quite a while). Our species and others may go extinct in a relatively short time, but they were going to go extinct eventually anyway; 2LoT, heat death of the universe, and all that. Really, the only "danger" is that our actions produce results contrary what we value, what we want. And really, that's what should matter to us. Ignorance is only bliss as long as there's someone else around to take up the resultant slack.

A universe that expands acceleratingly can never have a heat death.

Praise Hubble, him of the 1950s.

PZ: "While we can be pleased that the Vatican hasn't found common cause with another institutional enemy of good science, ultimately their decision is irrelevant."

Irrelevant to the universe, maybe, but considering that the Catholic Church is one of the top purveyors of primary and secondary education in the US, these discusssions could have more consequences than, say, those of the Kansas state board of Ed.

PZ: "My dream that Ratzi would go into a conclave and emerge to announce that it was all a mistake, the papacy was dissolved, and good Catholics should all embrace an enlightened materialistic naturalism hasn't come true just yet. "

Hey PZ, your dream didn't come true because you didn't pray hard enough!

PZ Myers: I hope that you will now no longer trust the Guardian for predictions concerning the Roman Catholic Church. In an earlier post you cited their advance coverage of this event, saying that "Pope Ratzi is getting ready to get medieval on the Catholic church--he's meeting this week to prepare to smack down those uppity scientists." I predicted then in your comments box that this would not happen. And I was right.

In fact what did happen is described by Peter Schuster as follows:

"The Pope in particular 'immediately accepted that theology is not going to interfere with science', Schuster adds. 'He is not a scientist, but I was surprised by the sharpness of his intellect. He wanted to be informed; he was very interested in science.'"

(From the Nature article you mention -- this appears immediately after the material you do cite.)

As mentioned by another commenter above, Schuster also said that

"The pope ... listened to my talk very carefully and asked very good questions at the end." (as reported in Science).

truth machine:

The above quotes give a much better indication of what a real dialogue between faith and reason involves.

PZ Myers: You speak of this meeting as a "conference" and complain about the fact that there was only one real scientist there. But this was neither a "conference" nor a "conclave." I tried to point this out before. It was a gathering of former students with their former professor, to discuss an issue of interest and importance. They invited a few additional people to inform their discussion. The one scientist they did invite seems to be eminently qualified to help them understand the issue they were discussing. His qualifications are detailed here:

http://www.tbi.univie.ac.at/~pks/

Among other things, while initially trained in chemistry and physics, he founded the Institute of Molecular Biotechnology in Jena, Germany and was Head of the Department of Molecular Evolutionary Biology from 1992 to 1997, and he has published books and articles in evolutionary biology.

He is also, by his own account, an agnostic.
(http://ncronline.org/mainpage/specialdocuments/intervieww-peterschuster….)

PZ: One more thing. Your last paragraph is a non-sequitur. You've just been explaining that the "men in funny hats" have precisely not done anything analogous to saying that the earth doesn't move. The current head man in a funny hat seems to be prepared to accept everything you describe here: "the world keeps spinning, the alleles keep changing, biological history has happened." Again, Schuster: "The Pope in particular 'immediately accepted that theology is not going to interfere with science.'"

What he won't accept is your claim in the previous paragraph that "theistic evolution is insupportable nonsense." This is not a scientific claim, but a philosophical one (based on views of what can make sense and what cannot, views that can't themselves even live up to their own standards).

I know, I know, my writing this shows I don't know anything about science. OK. I am not going to revisit that discussion. (See PZ's earlier post for too many words of mine and others on this.)

I tell you what: show me one credible piece of evidence for the "theistic" part of "theistic evolution", and I'll strike out the "insupportable" part of my claim.

"While we can be pleased that the Vatican hasn't found common cause with another institutional enemy of good science, ultimately their decision is irrelevant. "Eppur si muove," and all that--the world keeps spinning, the alleles keep changing, biological history has happened, and all the dogma of old men in funny hats won't change that."

Since there is no scientific controversy, but only a political one, events which influence the political controversy do matter. Even if for you science is simply a means to the end of the triumph of philosophical materialism and not an end in itself, things that may shift the political balance aren't irrelevant. By the standard you enunciate above, doing science itself is irrelevant, as whether or not the universe is studied, "Eppur si muove" and all that - the world keeps spinning, the alleles keep changing, biological history has happened and all the research of folk in funny white lab coats won't change that. Afterall, it all went on for billions of years before we were here to notice it, so evolution depends for its reality no more on our scientific study of it than it does on the Catholic Church's recognition of the accuracy of the theory of evolution.

Michael, the thing is that "theistic evolution" is absolutely unacceptable scientifically unless, even in principle, it has no observable consequences whatsoever. (And that as near as I can tell is exactly what most religious believers who are trained biologists would affirm, though occasionally one of them, like Collins, gets a little carried away and strays a short distance off the reservation- almost always as regards the "specialness" of humans, egotistical species that we are.) What remains is a meaningless form of words. If people nonetheless find it somehow comforting to repeat that meaningess form of words to themselves then hey, whatever floats your boat.

Exactly. Theistic evolution is either absolutely identical in every way to evolution that takes place on its own (and thus the Razor causes us to eliminate the unnecessary deity) or it is necessarily incorrect.

PZ: "show me one credible piece of evidence for the "theistic" part of "theistic evolution", and I'll strike out the "insupportable" part of my claim."

I'm more interested in the "nonsense" part of your claim. Perhaps you think that "insupportable" entails "nonsense." Steve Labonne certainly seems to think so. Steve moves straight from "has no observable consequences" to "meaningless form of words". That's just an application of the positivist theory of meaning -- a philosophical theory, not a scientific one. I think that's bad philosophy of language. It rules out too much that is obviously meaningful as "meaningless forms of words." (There certainly are meaningless forms of words, and people do sometimes use them under the illusion that they're making sense. But it takes a lot more work to show that, than just pointing to lack of observable consequences.)

Nonetheless: I do think there's evidence for the "theistic" part of "theistic evolution." But it's evidence of a different sort than that for the "evolution" part. For myself, I can't look around me without seeing this evidence everywhere. I agree with St. Paul that the existence of God is manifest in his creation. But I know you won't be impressed by that answer.

Here is a line of thought (I will just sketch it here) that I find interesting and that I think supports some sort of theism. (This line of thought derives from Leibniz, among others.) Science works on the methodological assumption that simpler hypotheses are to be favored -- parsimony, Ockham's razor, and all that. But why should we think that the simplest hypotheses that fit our data are in fact more likely to be true? Well, operating in accordance with methodological principles of parsimony has produced good results in the past, and continues to do so. But doesn't that just seem like a bit of dumb luck? Isn't it conceivable that the world should in fact be wildly complicated, not even remotely intelligible to us? And yet, the world turns out to be intelligible. Why? Theistic answer: because reason itself is the generating principle of nature. On this line of thought the very success of science is evidence for the existence of God.

OK, you still won't be impressed -- with Hume against Leibniz you will reject my question as meaningless, I am sure. (Interesting how the non-scientist Hume is taken to be on the right side here whereas Leibniz, and Newton -- and even, yes, Galileo -- are clearly on the wrong side...)

But this brings us back to the "nonsense" part: what's your criterion of meaningfulness and do you have an argument for it? (Or maybe you need no argument for it? In which case, the men in their funny white lab coats have some dogmas too, and in spite of them God goes on existing.)

Hey, as I said, if you find it comforting to repeat to yourself a story that even in principle has no observable consequences, feel free, it's no skin off my nose. And you'll find that the meaning of words within science is necessarily constituted in an essentially positivist way since science has to deal with things that are observable. Which by the way entails that if you like, I can also defend the meanininglessness of it in Wittgensteinian terms- the rules of the langauge game of science are clearly violated by talking about things that are in principle unobservable. Even merely being practically unobservable for the foreseeble future is a big problem which is why, for example, string theory is coming in for increasing attack among theoretical physicists.

AFAIK, the Catholic Church is still opposed to naturalistic explanations of the mind (i.e. neuroscience), even while it accepts evolution:

[T]heories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. (John Paul II)

You're using the ontological argument for the existence of God? Sorry, that one has always seemed the most ridiculous one to me. I can use it to prove the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the perfect Platonic form of the Fender Stratocaster.

Newton was also an alchemist. But he's not exactly praised for that these days, is he?

On this note, maybe "God" can explain why scientific and rational progress and development have increased the more secular society becomes?

We have already compared the benefits of theology and science. When the theologian governed the world, it was covered with huts and hovels for the many, palaces and cathedrals for the few. To nearly all the children of men, reading and writing were unknown arts. The poor were clad in rags and skins -- they devoured crusts, and gnawed bones. The day of Science dawned, and the luxuries of a century ago are the necessities of to-day. Men in the middle ranks of life have more of the conveniences and elegancies than the princes and kings of the theological times. But above and over all this, is the development of mind. There is more of value in the brain of an average man of to-day -- of a master-mechanic, of a chemist, of a naturalist, of an inventor, than there was in the brain of the world four hundred years ago.

These blessings did not fall from the skies. These benefits did not drop from the outstretched hands of priests. They were not found in cathedrals or behind altars -- neither were they searched for with holy candles. They were not discovered by the closed eyes of prayer, nor did they come in answer to superstitious supplication. They are the children of freedom, the gifts of reason, observation and experience - - and for them all, man is indebted to man.

-Robert Ingersoll, "God in the Constitution"

P.S.

For myself, I can't look around me without seeing this evidence everywhere.

The guy in the asylum who thinks he's Napoleon also can't look around him without seeing the evidence everywhere.

If I can toot my own horn for a moment, I'd just like to say that as a believer, as a Darwinian, I don't care for the label 'theistic evolutionist'. It implies two things, neither of which describe my thinking:

1) An attempt to reinterpret Genesis so that it conforms to current scientific models (silly, and unnecessary)

or, even worse

2) The assumption of a religious function by the current model (which is corrosive to science itself)

So, for the record, I see no need to look for evolution in the Bible, nor does evolution become the functional center of a belief system, 'evolutionism.' I am an enthusiastic Darwinian and a commited Christian; I am not an 'evolutionist', theistic or otherwise.

Scott

Steve Labonne: I think you've misunderstood Wittgenstein. To judge whether an expression is meaningful you have to consider it in the context of a language-game in which it finds its natural use. You can't, for Wittgenstein, privilege one language-game (for example the language game of science) and use it as the criterion for meaningfulness, period. (This is again not to say that there can be no criticism of language or showing that something is nonsensical. Wittgenstein's whole method is to reveal to us the nonsense we speak. But this is supposed to take harder philosophical work than just pointing to lack of observable consequences.)

What I object to is precisely the use of "meaningless" as shorthand for "meaningless in the language-game of science."

"Theistic evolution is, scientifically speaking, foolish and motivated by superstition. However, it seems to me that in these general terms that it agrees with the facts as observed and is coherent."

Theistic and deistic evolution are forms of creationism, where the cosmological (origin) and often teleological (design, purpose) arguments remains.

Currently there is an exciting progress that shows that this isn't agreeable with observed facts.

This year it become clear that the Lambda-CDM universe is observationally prefered ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model ). It is predicted by chaotic inflation, which is the simplest explanation. Chaotic inflation predicts multiverses with different vacua (physical properties), and endless inflation. In an infinitely old universe there is no origin.

Chaoitic inflation has more nice properties, it explains the initial low entropy and thus solves the problem of time, and it also explain the universal and nonchaotic nature of a succesfully inflated universe. In a chaotic inflated universe there is no coincidence of chaos. (Sounds tautological, but it's a matter of scales.)

The possibility of different vacua, the landscape, is also predicted by string theory. It means that the anthropic principle explains what seems to be finetuning of physical parameters - we live in a universe that we can live in. In a universe without finetuning there is no design of parameters.

Apparently they now have come to understand a direct prediction of the anthropic principle, our low vacuum energy (cosmic constant) and chaotic inflation type multiverses (bubble nucleation) - our universe will have a slightly negative curvature. ( http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2006/09/string-landscape-ai-and-virtual-wo… )

This is both a direct falsifiable prediction of both bubble universes and the landscape. And currently, a slight negative curvature is what we see! Unfortunately, it is not even outside the 1 sigma error, see my first link above. The Planck probe to be launched 2008 might give enough resolution (3 sigma).

Meanwhile we can consider both cosmological and the teleological arguments, ie theistic evolution, as not agreeing with theories prefered by observations.

"Even if for you science is simply a means to the end of the triumph of philosophical materialism and not an end in itself, things that may shift the political balance aren't irrelevant."

Philosophical materialism hasn't reached the status of a theory, so currently its opposite supernaturalism is only debunked, for example by observations as above. But if we come to know something for sure, it would merely be one piece of knowledge to add to the ongoing activity of science in its quest for knowledge. It is more important for the society than for science.

False Prophet: You don't know what "ontological argument for the existence of God" means. I didn't offer a version of that argument.

No dice, Michael- if you want to talk about evolution, you ARE within the language game of science, like it or not. Sadly, the lack of understanding here is not on my part.

isn't that peculiar in itself, that they'd have a conference on the status of evolution in the church, and only have one informed attendee?

Strictly speaking, of course, "God" was the only truly informed attendee, but then there's some question whether he counts as one participant or three.

(Ahh ... nothing tastes quite like that first sip of snark for the day.)

... isn't that peculiar in itself, that they'd have a conference on the status of evolution in the church, and only have one informed attendee?

Isn't it peculiar that an institution which loudly proclaims its mission is to be all about "life", the "culture of life", the "pro-life" cause, etc, should not have biologists among its leadership and biology at the center of its educational programs?

Why, some people might even conclude that "life(TM)" is just a simplistic marketing campaign and not a seriously meant and intellectually consistent commitment.

P.S. Again, if you merely want to talk to yourself about your imaginary friend, that's fine, and of course I do in a sense understand the "meaning" of the non-existent referent- to you. Just keep your imaginary friend well away from science, is all.

"In an infinitely old universe there is no origin."

Sorry, that should of course be "In an infinitely old multiverse there is no origin."

"it also explain the universal and nonchaotic nature of a succesfully inflated universe"

Sorry, that should have been "it also explains the observed universal and nonchaotic nature of a successfully inflated universe". (Since there also seem to be volumes of different vacua within an ergodic universe. But that is another story. Our hubble domain sits neatly within a chaotic universe anyway.)

And BTW, don't tell the catholic church. :-)

Torbjorn Larsson, sorry I don't see how your "exciting progress" conflicts with theistic evolution. I don't think an absolute beginning in time is required by a theistic view. If science rules that out, then fine. And then?

Sigh! "Our hubble domain sits neatly within a chaotic universe anyway. - Our hubble domain sits neatly within a chaotic inflated universe anyway.

Apparently I need a coffee break.

"I don't think an absolute beginning in time is required by a theistic view. If science rules that out, then fine. And then?"

How do you propose a creation moment of physical laws without an origin, and how do you propose purpose if each universe has a random selection of parameters?

The burden is on you to show that you have anything meaningful left. Otherwise you are discussing meaning as you do with Steve, which is another discussion. But if we are discussing if "these general terms that it agrees with the facts as observed" you can't interject any meaning into these word games.

Steve Labonne:

So according to you any talking I do about evolution has to be within the language-game of science and involve only terms that are meaningful within that language-game.

Then I suggest you not talk about evolution when discussing public policy. Or when talking about God.

But if we can talk about Wittgenstein for a moment, part of the problem here is in taking the idea of "language-games" too seriously, and thinking of these "games" on the model of something like chess, with its fixed and determinate rules. Whereas part of Wittgenstein's point is that there is no fixed essence of what a game is and similarly no fixed essence of language (and so no universal criterion of meaningfulness). From a Wittgensteinian point of view there are a multiplicity of language-games, if you like, but what happens when two such language-games meet in discourse is not determined in advance. It is certainly not settled that they never can so meet or that their interaction will require the assimilation of one of them to the other.

A real "dialogue between faith and reason" would recognize this. As far as I can tell on your view such dialogue is impossible.

"Meanwhile we can consider both cosmological and the teleological arguments, ie theistic evolution, as not agreeing with theories prefered by observations."

Hmpf! I conflated two different meanings of prefered. The Lambda-CDM is prefered in the sense that it is "the current concordance model" (ie secured by 3 sigma observations), the landscape is prefered in the sense that it is the best explanation of unsecured observations.

Michael,
If we look at word games, I think you need to show that your prefered game is consistent and meaningful. Science has procedures for both. How do you do a similar thing for religion?

Also, you must use your word game for all cases or you will have problems with parsimony (dualisms). Are you *really* prepared to exchange detailed explanations with balanced explanatory powers for 'goddidit' with limitless powers? A mechanism that explains everything explains nothing.

So according to you any talking I do about evolution has to be within the language-game of science and involve only terms that are meaningful within that language-game.

Yup. Biological evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory. Is there some part of that you have trouble understanding?

The rest of your babbling is pure non sequitur, unless you somehow don't think physical facts about the world need to enter into discussions of policy. And why would I want to talk about "God" when I see no good reason to believe that such an entity exists? I'm happy to leave the God-talk to you believers.

However, your last sentence is correct- I see no use in a "dialogue" between common sense and fairy tales. Once again, you'll just need to be satisfied with your own belief in fairy tales without seeking validation for them from science. Kindly stay within the bounds of your own language game, and all will be well.

Torbjorn: I do not need a specific creation moment. Every moment is a creation moment.

I now withdraw from the discussion before another too long serious of posts from me is generated (or maybe it has already been generated).

Sorry, I will now falsify my own claim.

Steve, I have to reply to your claim that I am guilty of a non-sequitur. Then I'm done.

I said: "So, according to you any talking I do about evolution has to be within the language-game of science and involve only terms that are meaningful within that language-game."

You said "Yup."

Now, from this it certainly follows that if I talk about evolution in the context of a public policy debate, I must use only terms that are meaningful within the language-game of science.

I think this means that I cannot use many of the terms I would need to use to engage in public policy debate. Terms like "inadvisable," "benefit," "harm," "law," and so on. Or do you really think all these terms are strictly meaningful according to the standards you've used to rule out talk of God as meaningless?

In any case Wittgenstein would certainly not agree with you on that one.

PZ: I tell you what: show me one credible piece of evidence for the "theistic" part of "theistic evolution", and I'll strike out the "insupportable" part of my claim.

To my mind, the only place for theistic evolution is to "explain" the unexplainable. In particular it can explain why we live on an Earth with this particular path of evolution over the myriad of other, equally likely possible paths. Science says it is random, and we got lucky (or unlucky, depending on your view). If theistic evolution says that some diety, call her Lady Luck, intervened to produce our particular history, then even though this view has no evidence, it is also not falsifiable.

How can there be theistic evolution if god only exists in the minds of the faithful?
God did it can be tacked onto any scientific finding or theory with your logic.

I love the theistic theory of gravity! It explains so much.

Evolution is fact and proven. God is not and never will be because god/gods/unicorns only exist in the mind.

Michael, you are one confused guy. When you are talking about "inadvisable", etc., your comments, while hopefully informed by scientific knowledge, are not about or within science. But to the extent that you do bring scientific knowledge to bear in such a discussion- eg., if your comments purport to be informed by facts about biological evolution- then yet again, yes you need to stick to SCIENCE when you present those facts. Not to stuff like "theistic evolution", whatever in the world that might actually be.

These are not difficult concepts, and only the strong power of wishful thinking can account for the confusion of someone as obviously intelligent as yourself about such straightfoward matters. But then one thing I've never understood about religious believers is their insatiable need for validation of their beliefs from others. Aren't you supposed to have, you know, faith? I suppose in a way this need is a reflection of the Christian God's "restless appetite for applause", to use Hume's felicitous phrase.

In particular it can explain why we live on an Earth with this particular path of evolution over the myriad of other, equally likely possible paths.

Try again. The probability of something happening that actually happened is 1, not 1 out of whatever. We are not even sure that all the other paths you posit are even equally likely, as I'm sure you'd admit if you thought about it. All we really need to do now is examine what initial conditions may have given rise to the current state of affairs.

I await their every pronouncement with baited breath!

That should be "bated" breath. But I am not alone, apparently. From Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban:

"The whole common room listened with baited breath

Pshaw. the only instances of 'baited breath' I know of are like:

http://www.nss.org.sg/singaporewaters/images/Frogfish.jpg

TL:

I agree that the string theorists are excited by the prospect of some versions of their model being concordant with reality, wherein the present Standard Model becomes a limiting case of a more accurate, detailed description that unifies gravity with the other forces. They seem to be in a perpetual state of excitement, frankly.

But isn't it telling that one of the goals of this project is to legitimize the multiverse? It's a curious state of affairs that some version of monism is preferred in science to dualism, and yet (to preserve the possibility of a detailed description) a lot of physicists are hanging their hats on an as-yet-untestable plurality of worlds. That smacks of the supernatural to me, or at the very least of metaphysical presumption.

To me, until there are compelling observations available that are specifically predicted by some particular model, I prefer one universe, with a single origin on grounds of parsimony. If you have to invent additional untestable universes to maintain your model, your model doesn't deserve to be even called a theory. It may be exciting, but it's an exciting speculation at best.

Comments?

SH

speedwell, the initial conditions give rise to a whole ensemble of possible futures, all with some probability. Yes, the probabilities are not equal, please excuse my oversimplification. But in the end, evolution is a probabilistic process and thus evolutionary theory can only speak to probabilities. Which path is actually realized is outside the bounds of a probabilistic theory. If one wants to posit that Lady Luck picks the realization, no problem, provided She acts within the probabilities imposed by the science.

That smacks of the supernatural to me, or at the very least of metaphysical presumption.

Lawrence Krauss at Case Western Reserve here in Cleveland- known to many Pharyngula readers for his activism agaisnt creationism and IDiocy- is one of what appears to us outsiders to be an increasing number of physicists crying foul about exactly that.

This Michael guy sure says some interesting things, very mundane confused things.

It seems to me any and all talk of God is rendered somewhat meaningless minus evidence or even a compelling argument as to which one of the 1000's of versions may be correct.

It never ceases to amaze me that people will

A. think they have the correct invisible superbeing in their life. 98% of the time the one from their culture or family tradition.

B. Think everyone who thinks their superbeing is the right one is wrong.

C. Actually mount arguments in defense of their invisible superbeing being the correct one and that it even fits with empirical science no matter the bending and twisting needed.

we are an odd species.

For myself, I can't look around me without seeing this evidence everywhere

Of which God? Why your particular version?

It's funny to me when you see people argue about how faith and reason can accompany one another and then swallow the many unreasonable beliefs of a particular religious institution. Perhaps a fideism makes the argument work but not in any way usually posited.

Promoting the notion of "theistic evolution" is the act of theists pissing on evolution to mark science as the property of religion.

Most rational people do not welcome such a contribution, but to complain is regarded as an act of incivility.

For myself, I can't look around me without seeing this evidence everywhere. I agree with St. Paul that the existence of God is manifest in his creation. But I know you won't be impressed by that answer."

This metaphorical "seeing" is just a nice way to express the fact that you feel connected to, or inspired by, your surroundings.

Don't call it evidence of some invisible force or God. It's evidence of a feel-good chemical going off in your head.

Just for fun now, folks:

Google hits for "bated breath": 544,000

Google hits for "baited breath": 396,000

Correct spelling wins, but poor spelling is not far behind.

OK, once more into the breach:

Steve Labonne: If you are willing to let my discussion of public policy be informed by science, without being constrained by the requirements of scientific discourse, why can't my discussion of theology be similarly informed by science without claiming to be science?

I have these two sets of beliefs: scientific ones and religious ones. I am interested in figuring out whether they can be fit together into a coherent view. If I want to inform my theological views scientifically, of course I should stick to science when presenting scientific facts. But I don't need, in order to do this, to reduce my religious beliefs to scientific ones. Yet it seems you would require me to do this.

By the way, "theistic evolution" is not a name for a scientific or pseudo-scientific theory. It denotes a position concerning the relation between science and theology. In this respect it is unlike "Intelligent Design" which masquerades as science.

I didn't make up the phrase "theistic evolution" and I don't really like it very much, so if it bothers you I'm happy to abandon it. It was pinned on me in the earlier discussion by some of the other commenters. I'll just stick to the position itself.

Ken Cope: I don't want to claim science as the property of religion. I only want to dispute the claim of those who say that it is the exclusive property of atheism.

George: I indicated in my own post that you all wouldn't find my sense of God's presence in the world convincing. But the mere fact (of course it's a fact) that something happens in my brain when I feel this presence shows absolutely nothing. Something happens in my brain when I understand a mathematical proof, but that doesn't show that my understanding of the proof has no relevance to knowledge. Even though most people are incapable of understanding the proof.

GH, JimC: I didn't claim to be giving grounds for my particular religious views here, but only for the "theistic" part of "theistic evolution", as per PZ's request. If there is evidence for a God of any sort, of course that leaves open many further questions concerning God's attributes, etc.

"I'd just like to say that as a believer, as a Darwinian, I don't care for the label 'theistic evolutionist'."

Scott, you should look up my earlier post on the book "Follies of the Wise" by Frederick Crew.

He explains that the two things you propose are totally incompatible.

Michael Kremer: ...I only want to dispute the claim of those who say that [science] is the exclusive property of atheism.

Science has no use for religion and its claims. Science is a process that works completely independently from religion, so it can be practiced without respect for any religious beliefs at all, by people across the spectrum of religious belief. Science, i.e. methodological naturalism, is an atheistic process, no matter what is believed about religion by anybody engaged in it. Claiming a role for theism in science is an act of religion, not science.

Michael, as a trained scientist I won't stand for misrepresentation of science. And that's exactly what is happening when someone attempts to drag religious baggage into science. Things like "theistic evolution" are a form of intellectual fraud; an attempt to misappropriate the prestige of science to provide the naked theological emperor with borrowed clothes. Whenever and however this is done, I will strongly object.

I don't care that you don't like this objection. It will stand, no matter how much bandwidth you waste trying to defend the indefensible.

This:

I only want to dispute the claim of those who say that it is the exclusive property of atheism.

is a rather stupid category mistake, by the way. First, you're reifying "atheism" in a totally unwarranted way; it'a a purely negative phenomenon. (And as Dawkins has pointed out, you are an atheist about all of humanity's many gods, except one. I just go one god further.) Second, you're free to hold whatever beliefs you wish. If you don't claim that those beliefs have consequences observable by science, in that version I can live happily enough with the "overlapping magisteria". If you claim that your supernatural beliefs have observable consequences, scientists will quite legitimately ask you to show your evidence and will want to study those phenomena. There's no free ontological lunch. And thirdly, as I already noted, why do you care whether I grant any standing to your peculiar metaphysical beliefs? That betrays a strange sort of insecurity, which puzzles me greatly. The believer doth protest too much.

palmira: As I have mentioned previously, the idea that science and philosophy are disjoint is itself an idea which should be rejected by a consistent materialist and realist. (Which, IMO, is a good argument against antirealism, but that's another story.) By claiming that something is only a philosophical issue, the clergyman in question is thus implicitly rejecting a scientific world view. This is a "pope believes in god" type "duh!" headline, though.

Michael Kremer: Except, of course, the world is not obviously simple. Even Leibniz recognized that and had to postulate that god is maximizing variety as well as harmony. Moreover, the "argument from simplicity" if I may call it that has failed. Consider Kepler's attempt to find circular orbits for the planets. A circle (assuming a fixed coordinate system) is describable in one parameter (the radius). An ellipse requires two (the location of the foci, or the lengths of the axes). Prima facie, this is an increase in complexity. It would seem thus that the simplest world would be Parmenides' - but that's not ours. (See also Bunge's little known work, The Myth of Simplicity where, as I recall, the great slogan "simplicity isn't simple" is defended.)

poke: Quite true, and to that extent they are creationists too.

If there is evidence for a God of any sort, of course that leaves open many further questions concerning God's attributes, etc

And just how would one discern this information? And what standard are you using for evidence? Your just willingliy chasing your own tail.

And the others nailed the science/atheism comment quite well. If Jesus rose from the dead he did it in the natural world. A world open to science. Hence while faith in such an event is one thing THE actual event is very much in the science field.

Bernarda, Scott Hatfield here.

I'll see if I can find your post re: Crews. However I'm not sure that I see the connection, since you wrote that the two things that I "proposed" were completely incompatible.

Fact is, I wasn't *proposing* either! I was not trying to claim that either proposition was true or to speak to their consonance or lack of same with respect to one another. Quite the contrary! I was trying to explain why I, personally, don't care for the term 'theistic evolutionist.' Not only is the term unscientific, it seems to lead to category errors such as the two examples I cited.

I hope that clears up any misapprehension of my views. Alternatively, if I've misread your comments, please favor me with a correction. In any case, thanks for your reply.

Cordially....Scott

Why not? They have celibate men doing marriage preparation courses.

Well, those who can, do, those who can't, teach.

Hey, George, I resemble that remark!!

8^D

"Meanwhile we can consider both cosmological and the teleological arguments, ie theistic evolution, as not agreeing with theories prefered by observations."

Due to my enthusiasm I made a conflation I usually abstain from, between peerreviewed predictions and speculative ones. Rectifying that means to claim: Meanwhile we can consider both cosmological and the teleological arguments, ie theistic evolution, as not agreeing, or perhaps not agreeing, with theories prefered by observations.

Michael:
"Every moment is a creation moment."

Extreme last thursdayism. Sure, only scientific parsimonity can argue against it. This is one reason why supernaturalism is a dualism that is often discussed.

Steve:
Sorry about the delay in answering! I hope you notice this anyway.

"But isn't it telling that one of the goals of this project is to legitimize the multiverse?"

That wasn't an apriori goal, it is an exciting unverified hypothesis.

"To me, until there are compelling observations available that are specifically predicted by some particular model, I prefer one universe, with a single origin on grounds of parsimony."

Tegmark tackles the question of parsimony against his multiverse description: "To postulate an infinity of unseen and unseeable universes just to explain the one we do see seems like a case of excess baggage carried to the extreme.

Tegmark answers:"A common feature of all four multiverse levels is that the simplest and arguably most elegant theory involves parallel universes by default. To deny the existence of those universes, one needs to complicate the theory by adding experimentally unsupported processes and ad hoc postulates: finite space, wave function collapse and ontological asymmetry. Our judgment therefore comes down to which we find more wasteful and inelegant: many worlds or many words."[4] Thus paradoxically the multiverse scenario is more parsimonious than that of a single universe." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_%28science%29 )

In one case, the QM manyworld interpretation, the multiverse description removes two axioms and the phenomena of wavefunction collapse, while adding the manyworlds. The net result is reducing the model by two parts, so it seems like a clear case of parsimony to me.

"If you have to invent additional untestable universes to maintain your model, your model doesn't deserve to be even called a theory."

Theories that are falsifiably supported by observations also supports unobserved objects indirectly. We weren't there when big bang occurred, nor can we our observations probe back to the very moment. But no one denies that it happened.

Keith:
"It would seem thus that the simplest world would be Parmenides' - but that's not ours."

Moreover, simplicity is illdefined. Mark Chu-Carroll on Good Math, Bad Math blog has a proof why one can't generally show if one has found the arithmetic simplest program for generating a specific string: "given a system S, you cannot in general show that there is no smaller/simpler system that performs the same task as S." ( http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/06/the_problem_with_irreducibly_c… ) That probably generalises to that one can't show if one has found the simplest model that produces a certain behaviour.

This is BTW why IC is illdefined - if general simplicity is illdefined, so is also local simplicity for a properly restricted problem. And IC is supposed to be the locally simplest system. Simplicity isn't simple, it is (irreducibly) complex. ;-)