[Apologetics] Pope's commission on evolution

[Stuart D. Gathman]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, Jonathan Gathman wrote:

>   How are you?  Looks like the Pope has approved a commission on 
> Creation/Evolution... Would like to hear your comments. :) :)
> 
> http://www.beliefnet.com/story/197/story_19764_1.html

The article misrepresents all sides at a fundamental level.

For example, 

  The seminar, titled "Creation and Evolution," is sure to attract the
  attention of supporters of "intelligent design" -- the idea that the world is
  too complex to have been created by natural events alone -- and Vatican
  scientists who do not consider it valid science. 

"intelligent design" is *not* the "too complex" idea described.  The "too
complex" argument was abandonded in the 19th century.  Michael
Behe has updated it by postulating "irreducible complexity", but that
is still not "intelligent design".  Intelligent design is about
"specified complexity".  "Intelligent" is a latin derived word
meaning literally "to chose between".  Any random arrangement of
Boggle cubes is equally complex.  But if an intelligence choses the
arrangement, then it is "specified complexity".

And again,

  But in January, an editorial published in L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican's
  official newspaper, questioned the validity of intelligent design,
  reaffirming Roman Catholicism's support for evolution.

The Catholic Church has *never* "supported evolution".  They have refused
to take sides in the scientific aspects of the debate (remembering the
Galileo fiasco).  Instead, the Church has dogmatically declared that
whatever form it took, God was the initiator and ultimate cause
of creation.  This has been wrongly regarded as "supporting" evolution
because thoughtless people seem to think this dogma is "compatible"
with evolution.  In truth, however, it directly contradicts the fundamental
dogma of atheistic evolution at the beginning of any course in
evolutionary biology - that mutation and selection are *unguided*.

There are theological problems with "theistic evolution".  It
seems out of character to many for God to use "survival of the fittest" as the
means of creation.  Are these problem sufficient to reject evolution
as a mechanism on theological grounds?

Note that materialism (and hence atheistic evolution) rejects intelligent
design a priori - because it rejects the existence of true intelligence.
Intelligence - the ability to make choices - is a supernatural phenomena.
According to materialists, it is an illusion - our supposed choices are just
the complex outcome of the laws of physics.  If you define "true science" as 
strict materialism, then sure, intelligent design is not "true science".  But
then in that case, it doesn't really matter anyway - the debate is just
the complex outcome of physical law.

Intelligent design theorists define "science" as restricted to what can
be observed and studied.  They do not restrict "scientific" theories to strict
materialism only, but to those which can be supported or shot down by
observation (as opposed to revelation or metaphysics).

-- 
	      Stuart D. Gathman <stuart at bmsi.com>
    Business Management Systems Inc.  Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.