Comments on: Stirring the Muck http://www.cornellsociety.org/2008/04/stirring-the-muck/ Unity in charity, diversity in truth Sat, 05 Jul 2008 23:19:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Clara http://www.cornellsociety.org/2008/04/stirring-the-muck/#comment-50529 Clara Fri, 09 May 2008 15:32:07 +0000 http://www.cornellsociety.org/2008/04/stirring-the-muck/#comment-50529 I'm no biologist, so I can't discuss the scientific plausibility of ID, but from the standpoint of Catholic metaphysics I'd say it solves a lot more problems than it creates. I understand what Ambrosius says about wanting to tell a story of the natural development of the world that doesn't call for regular divine intervention. When it comes to the origin of a species, though, I think the traditional understanding of what a species is almost necessitates some special action of grace. This shouldn't be a totally crazy idea, and I don't think it necessarily need involve God "breaking" his own laws. Our story of human salvation involves regular occurrences of God pouring out grace on particular people, and nothing about this seems illegitimate to us. I don't see why it would be so extremely problematic to suppose that, like the salvation of man, creation is accomplished over time, with regular outpouring of grace throughout. I think this issue gets confused sometimes because people don't understand what the "problem" really is. They think that they only need to explain how evolution is compatible with divine causality, and if that were the challenge it really would be easy because we have lots of practice explaining how divine and natural causality can simultaneously be attributed to the same thing or event. Pretty much all events in the natural world require those sorts of explanation, so if that were the only problem there would be nothing special about evolution per se. That isn't the main problem, however. The real problem is about teleology. Catholics have always taken it that species all fit into natural kinds, each with its own specific telos. Needless to say, this view of things becomes quite confused when natural kinds are always gradually morphing into other natural kinds -- how can that be reconciled to a thing's OWN telos? I'm not saying that ID is the only way to deal with this, but if we're to hang onto a natural kinds view (and really, as Catholics we can't possibly let that go) it seems like we'll need some special action of grace to allow a thing to "telos-jump" from one kind to another... And it'll be much easier to handle if it happens in relatively dramatic bursts and not through a slow and gradual morphing. Which is why I say, from a metaphysical standpoint, ID starts to look relatively appealing. I’m no biologist, so I can’t discuss the scientific plausibility of ID, but from the standpoint of Catholic metaphysics I’d say it solves a lot more problems than it creates. I understand what Ambrosius says about wanting to tell a story of the natural development of the world that doesn’t call for regular divine intervention. When it comes to the origin of a species, though, I think the traditional understanding of what a species is almost necessitates some special action of grace. This shouldn’t be a totally crazy idea, and I don’t think it necessarily need involve God “breaking” his own laws. Our story of human salvation involves regular occurrences of God pouring out grace on particular people, and nothing about this seems illegitimate to us. I don’t see why it would be so extremely problematic to suppose that, like the salvation of man, creation is accomplished over time, with regular outpouring of grace throughout.

I think this issue gets confused sometimes because people don’t understand what the “problem” really is. They think that they only need to explain how evolution is compatible with divine causality, and if that were the challenge it really would be easy because we have lots of practice explaining how divine and natural causality can simultaneously be attributed to the same thing or event. Pretty much all events in the natural world require those sorts of explanation, so if that were the only problem there would be nothing special about evolution per se.

That isn’t the main problem, however. The real problem is about teleology. Catholics have always taken it that species all fit into natural kinds, each with its own specific telos. Needless to say, this view of things becomes quite confused when natural kinds are always gradually morphing into other natural kinds — how can that be reconciled to a thing’s OWN telos?

I’m not saying that ID is the only way to deal with this, but if we’re to hang onto a natural kinds view (and really, as Catholics we can’t possibly let that go) it seems like we’ll need some special action of grace to allow a thing to “telos-jump” from one kind to another… And it’ll be much easier to handle if it happens in relatively dramatic bursts and not through a slow and gradual morphing. Which is why I say, from a metaphysical standpoint, ID starts to look relatively appealing.

]]> By: Ambrosius http://www.cornellsociety.org/2008/04/stirring-the-muck/#comment-50520 Ambrosius Fri, 09 May 2008 14:18:46 +0000 http://www.cornellsociety.org/2008/04/stirring-the-muck/#comment-50520 I was just writing some thoughts for a friend on intelligent design, which I thought might be relevant here: I'm not sure that the intelligent design focus is one consonant with a right understanding of God's creative nature. God as creator who makes things directly, all at once, rather made sense -- and was indubitably the default view for most of the history of the world and of Christianity. But their new idea, that God more or less used natural processes to shape the world over a long time before humans were brought in, but occasionally "broke" his own laws in the unfolding of that process, seems to me to be a very strange concept: the miraculous in Biblical and Catholic history is always to a purpose, and though I guess a hidden underpinning of the miraculous in, say, the structure of DNA or something could be a sign in a similar sense to the biblical miracles, it seems to me more likely not to be. This is because, I think, God's acting in Nature is chiefly characterized by reliability and faithfulness: He made the rules and He sticks to them, so we can count on the world being the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, until He brings it to an end. But the incursions of alterations in the fundamental fabric of how nature works, temporarily, during the reign of the laws which God Himself set up, looks more like poor planning -- which He is not capable of -- than it does of a secret signpost pointing the way to Him -- not because God doesn't use signs to help us, but because His use of those signs has always been allied to Revelation of the Law, or of Christ, rather than as a help to the incredulous to believe in Him at all. Blessed is the man who has not seen, yet has still believed! Aquinas' proofs for God's existence don't rely on the miraculous, and if that was good enough for Aquinas, it's good enough for me. I was just writing some thoughts for a friend on intelligent design, which I thought might be relevant here:
I’m not sure that the intelligent design focus is one consonant with a right understanding of God’s creative nature. God as creator who makes things directly, all at once, rather made sense — and was indubitably the default view for most of the history of the world and of Christianity. But their new idea, that God more or less used natural processes to shape the world over a long time before humans were brought in, but occasionally “broke” his own laws in the unfolding of that process, seems to me to be a very strange concept: the miraculous in Biblical and Catholic history is always to a purpose, and though I guess a hidden underpinning of the miraculous in, say, the structure of DNA or something could be a sign in a similar sense to the biblical miracles, it seems to me more likely not to be. This is because, I think, God’s acting in Nature is chiefly characterized by reliability and faithfulness: He made the rules and He sticks to them, so we can count on the world being the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, until He brings it to an end. But the incursions of alterations in the fundamental fabric of how nature works, temporarily, during the reign of the laws which God Himself set up, looks more like poor planning — which He is not capable of — than it does of a secret signpost pointing the way to Him — not because God doesn’t use signs to help us, but because His use of those signs has always been allied to Revelation of the Law, or of Christ, rather than as a help to the incredulous to believe in Him at all. Blessed is the man who has not seen, yet has still believed! Aquinas’ proofs for God’s existence don’t rely on the miraculous, and if that was good enough for Aquinas, it’s good enough for me.

]]> By: anon http://www.cornellsociety.org/2008/04/stirring-the-muck/#comment-50472 anon Fri, 09 May 2008 07:55:34 +0000 http://www.cornellsociety.org/2008/04/stirring-the-muck/#comment-50472 Haven't seen the film yet, as American films tend to come out in the UK a few months after. However, I will probably see it when I come home, just so I can make my own judgment about the way Expelled depicted the evolution/ID debate. I don't suppose Stein ever mentioned Cardinal Schonborn's writings on Evolution? I haven't read his book myself, but it just seems to me that Catholics have never had the same kind of trouble reconciling evolution (but NOT dogmatic Darwinism) and their faith that many Protestants have. Of course, I believe that quite a few members of the Discovery Institute are Catholic, so ID isn't necessarily just a Protestant enterprise. Also, there are quite a few scientists/theologians who criticize Darwinism but nonetheless do not accept ID, mostly because they think that ID needlessly opens itself to criticism from evolutionists (i.e. the whole "God-of-the-gaps" approach). Alister McGrath and Francis Collins are the names that immediately come to mind. Again, I'm hardly an expert on this whole subject, but these are just my thoughts upon reading this post. Any book suggestions? Haven’t seen the film yet, as American films tend to come out in the UK a few months after. However, I will probably see it when I come home, just so I can make my own judgment about the way Expelled depicted the evolution/ID debate.

I don’t suppose Stein ever mentioned Cardinal Schonborn’s writings on Evolution? I haven’t read his book myself, but it just seems to me that Catholics have never had the same kind of trouble reconciling evolution (but NOT dogmatic Darwinism) and their faith that many Protestants have. Of course, I believe that quite a few members of the Discovery Institute are Catholic, so ID isn’t necessarily just a Protestant enterprise.

Also, there are quite a few scientists/theologians who criticize Darwinism but nonetheless do not accept ID, mostly because they think that ID needlessly opens itself to criticism from evolutionists (i.e. the whole “God-of-the-gaps” approach). Alister McGrath and Francis Collins are the names that immediately come to mind.

Again, I’m hardly an expert on this whole subject, but these are just my thoughts upon reading this post. Any book suggestions?

]]>