iDesign at UCI: Catholic Church Supports Intelligent Design

iDesign @ UCI

Welcome Message To New Students

Interested in Origins?
Join the club.

MISSION STATEMENT:

iDesign Club at UCI seeks to foster scientific discussions regarding the origins of life and the universe. Theories such as Darwinian evolution, intelligent design, and creationism will be critically analyzed.

FAQ:

Q: WHAT IS THIS CLUB ABOUT?

Origins! We are interested in discussing alternative theories to the origins of biological structures. While the current mainstream theory in academia is Darwinian evolution, we would also like to discuss other viable ideas, such as intelligent design.

Q: WHO CAN BE A MEMBER OF THIS CLUB?

Anybody! Students of Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Engineering, Anthropology, and Philosophy may especially find this club intriguing. However, you do not need to have a science background to be an effective member of this club.

Q: WHEN AND WHERE ARE CLUB MEETINGS?

Please check blog entries for time and place.

Q: WHAT IS THE MEMBERSHIP FEE?

Nothing! There are no membership dues.

Q: IS THIS CLUB BIASED TOWARDS ONE SPECIFIC THEORY OF ORIGINS?

Perhaps. Ponder the name of this club. This club is ideologically the mirror of another club at UCI, the Students for Science and Skepticism. However, our main goal is to give a balanced view of the controversy regarding the origins of life so that students can come to an informed conclusion themselves.

Q: WHAT DOES THE LETTER "i" STAND FOR IN iDESIGN?

Good question -- the answer is intelligent.

Q: WHERE IS THE CLUB CONSTITUTION?

We adhere to the minimum constitution that was provided by the Dean of Students. In the future, we plan to draft a comprehensive constitution and bylaws.

Q: IS iDESIGN AFFILIATED WITH ANY ORGANIZATION?

No. However, we are friends with the IDEA Center

ORGANIZATION:

PRESIDENT:
Arthur
Information and Computer Science

VICE PRESIDENT:
Brian
Biology / English

DIRECTOR:
Andrew
English / Economics

Sunday, July 10, 2005

Catholic Church Supports Intelligent Design

Christoph Schönborn, the cardinal archbishop of Vienna, has written an article in the New York Times titled "Finding Design in Nature," which flatly rejects the unguided process of neo-Darwinian evolution. Consider the final paragraph of the article:
Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.
The NYT has a follow-up article about the issue. Michael Behe, a Catholic, gives some thoughts at IDTF. I personally think that this recent statement by the Catholic church has monumental significance, in the same league as the news of Antony Flew's conversion to theism back in 2004.

Posted by Art at 9:31 PM

21 Comments:

Digbeth D'Marriotti said...

New Scientist is running special issue on ID here:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/evolution

7/12/2005 7:33 AM

Ed Darrell said...

It wasn't a statement by the Catholic Church -- it was a statement written by the public relations firm of the Discovery Institute published under the name of a Catholic bishop.

The Pope speaks for the church; this bishop does not.

And just today we get the word that the good bishop is backing away from the NY Times version of the statement, in the Austrian press.

God works in mysterious ways . . .

7/14/2005 11:19 PM

Ed Darrell said...

And, since Anthony Flew later said the news of his "conversion" was much exaggerated, does your pointing to that example mean that you really think this is a phony view of the Catholic Church's position, too?

7/14/2005 11:26 PM

Art said...

John,
Thanks for the link.

7/19/2005 10:31 PM

Art said...

Hi Ed,

It wasn't a statement by the Catholic Church -- it was a statement written by the public relations firm of the Discovery Institute published under the name of a Catholic bishop

Do you think this bishop has some sort of connection with DI?

The Pope speaks for the church; this bishop does not.

We'll have to wait and see how this plays out, but it certainly seems for the moment that the Catholic church is denouncing "unguided" Darwinian evolution.

And, since Anthony Flew later said the news of his "conversion" was much exaggerated, does your pointing to that example mean that you really think this is a phony view of the Catholic Church's position, too?

I doubt that the bishop would be such a loose cannon to publish such an authoritative article in the NYT. However, I could be wrong.

7/19/2005 10:36 PM

Ed Darrell said...

Yes, this particular Catholic bishop has links to the DI. In fact, it now comes out that the DI's public relations firm wrote the piece for him.

Whose word should we take: Pope Pius XII and John Paul II, or DI's PR firm?

The Catholic Church's position has remained consistent. Evolution is science -- good science that cures disease and feeds people -- and there is no conflict with Christianity in so far as evolution theory doesn't say "God has no role."

Since evolution theory says nothing at all about God, and particularly, nothing against God's role, there is no conflict.

Most people can understand this. This position is why so much of the "intelligent design" propaganda is directed at making stick the spin that evolution claims there is no god. If that whopper can be sold . . .

It helps when you can get your PR folks to ghost the words of religious people, too.

7/30/2005 8:07 AM

Art said...

In fact, it now comes out that the DI's public relations firm wrote the piece for him.

Could you provide a credible link? I also saw PT making the same claim, but they didn't link to a credible source.

Whose word should we take: Pope Pius XII and John Paul II, or DI's PR firm?

IMO, we shouldn't take anybody's word without examining it first.

Since evolution theory says nothing at all about God, and particularly, nothing against God's role, there is no conflict.

Actually, Darwinism limits God to blind stochastic processes. Darwinism makes a Supreme Designer a superfluous entity that can be cut off using Ockham's Razor.

We don't have to think about this issue in either-or terms. Rather, we should consider the P(God exists | evolution) and the P(God exists | design). You seem to say that the first probability is not 0. But it is low -- probably much lower than the second probability. Thus, which option would you expect the Catholic Church to embrace?

8/06/2005 9:54 AM

Nathan said...

Hi, Art.

I'm glad to see that you are using uncommon words and what I can only assume are various statistical and/or standard mathematical equations to confuse people and assure a victory in the name of intelligent design. I imagine that's probably the easiest way to get such a victory.

To begin, Ed is absolutely correct in the sense that the bishop does not speak for the church and the pope does. Unless you are assuming the church's lack of a retraction in the NYT's is absolute proof that they back the bishop on this, you might want to hesitate using the word "denouncing."

Now then, on to your later statements.

When you say "stochastic processes" do you mean "blind conjecture" or "some blind random variable"? Either way, is the reason you used that particular word really because you wanted to extremely educated as you pushed religion? That's the standard method of the modern "intelligent design" route.

Regardless, who cares? Physicists rarely leave room in their equations for a God factor. Biologists rarely leave room for God when they are trying to assess a disease. It is the stance and goal of science to always explain things beyond some all powerful being or random chance. This stance is how we managed to make it out of the dark ages, develop surgery, discover working medicines, travel to the moon, etc.

Over the last little while, the church has always taken the stance that religion should try to stay out of science for the betterment of all. As such, the church's current stance is simple: God creates the soul. God is generally involved in things. But please, oh please, leave science to the scientists. Galileo was embarrassing enough.

As such, I feel you left out an important third option

P(God exists | ?)

8/06/2005 11:56 PM

Anonymous said...

We don't have to think about this issue in either-or terms. Rather, we should consider the P(God exists | evolution) and the P(God exists | design). You seem to say that the first probability is not 0. But it is low -- probably much lower than the second probability. Thus, which option would you expect the Catholic Church to embrace?

Why not embrace both? Evolution would be the science, and design would be the religion. As I recall, that pretty much is how the Catholic Church looks at it. E.g., they "don't have to think about this issue in either-or terms." (!)

8/07/2005 1:59 AM

Nathan said...

I think in this case the question at hand certainly is mostly black and white.

Does the catholic church argue for intelligent design? Answer: No. The Vatican has made no statement on the subject, save what was said back in 96, when JPII suggested some sort of interest in evolution. It seems one cardinal who does not have the voice of the entire church seems to be a fan of Intelligent design.

Beyond this, we enter gray area. However, as a catholic, I feel it is unlikely that the church would ever directly contradict current popular scientific opinion, because doing so may lead to some fairly embarrassing future situations, and the church is tired of being embarrassed.

Others may feel otherwise. This, of course, does not answer the question of intelligent design vs. evolution, but that isn't the goal, is it? If we are discussing that actual question, I'm currently of the opinion that the two need not contradict one another, just as the big bang or geological history need not contradict the existence of God, but that's just me.

8/14/2005 5:22 PM

Art said...

Hi N.J.,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

When you say "stochastic processes" do you mean "blind conjecture" or "some blind random variable"? Either way, is the reason you used that particular word really because you wanted to extremely educated as you pushed religion?

Yes, a stochastic process can be thought of as random variables. It was not my intention to sound extremely educated (many math/science students at UCI would know what stochastic means).

Regardless, who cares? Physicists rarely leave room in their equations for a God factor. Biologists rarely leave room for God when they are trying to assess a disease. It is the stance and goal of science to always explain things beyond some all powerful being or random chance. This stance is how we managed to make it out of the dark ages, develop surgery, discover working medicines, travel to the moon, etc.

You have a good point here. However, I would also point out that many of the 'founding' scientists (Newton, Copernicus, Maxwell, etc) viewed science as a way to uncover God's handiwork.

As such, I feel you left out an important third option
P(God exists | ?)

Great observation! I assume you mean that "?" is everything other than evolution or design. However, this third option, P(?) probably has low probability; the controversy is between design and Darwinism, and there isn't much talk about a third option. So if ? has low probability, than we don't have to worry too much about P(God exists | ?) since it would be weighted by the low probability of ?, which would make it negligent.

Does the catholic church argue for intelligent design? Answer: No.

Yes, there certainly is division within the Catholic Church. But it seems like the Catholic Church is starting to embrace ID (see this article about the Catholic Church in Australia). And if you read Schonborn's note at the end of his article, it certainly seems like the pope backs him

8/19/2005 9:30 PM

Art said...

Hi 386sx,

Why not embrace both? Evolution would be the science, and design would be the religion.

Good point. However, design and unguided evolution operate in the same sphere since they both attempt to explain the origin and diversity of life. Intelligent design and Darwinism both make scientific claims. Of course, one can take the position you suggest and hold to evolution at a scientific level and design at a metaphysical level. But again, this is is susceptible to Ockham's razor, since design would be superfluous to explaining the natural world.

In fact, if you think that intelligence was involved in the formation of life at any level and that this design is detectable in nature, I would classify you as an supporter of ID. IMO, supporting any hint of intelligence collapses into support for ID. In order to support true Darwinism, you would have to ascribe to the blindness of the theory. This is a potential advantage of ID.

In other words:

Darwinism <=> 0% measurable intelligence can be detected in nature

ID <=> any non-zero % measurable intelligence can be detected in nature

8/19/2005 10:11 PM

Art said...

In order to support true Darwinism, you would have to ascribe to the blindness of the theory

I meant "subscribe," not "ascribe."

8/20/2005 10:08 AM

Nathan said...

Hey Art,

I did not mean for ? to mean anything other than those two options. In a sense I was really just making a joke. ? is meant as "we don't know and we don't intend to put our nose in the matter." In other words, I'm giving the church the option to choose not to choose. It is, in my opinion, a reasonable option under the circumstances.

I'm not sure about the church's specific opinion about the Ockam's Razor argument, however, I tend to support it. I was raised with the general understanding that God tend's to perform his works in a manner that cannot be scientifically proven or disproven. That he prefer's we believe in him based upon faith alone. As such, scientifically, there simply should not be any direct evidence of God's involvement in evolution. Therefore, I suppose I shall use the argument of religion as support for Darwinism. To show measurable intelligence in nature would, according to the faith that I have been taught, demostrate that God is fallible.

On the other hand, if we are not discussing some almighty being, it could be possible that some intelligent species developed us, but that returns us to the question of origins. "If they developed us, who developed them?"

Finally, you in turn make a good point that Newton and co. thought of science as a way to uncover God's work, and I tend to agree with this notion. The thing is, I'd be surprised if any of them saw science as a way to prove God's work and then extrapolate further scientific principles based upon the hand of God. The word "uncover" should not be confused w/ "prove/find evidence for a theory of."

8/20/2005 5:44 PM

Nathan said...

One other thing, Art,

You need to understand that the tradition, rules, and dogma of the catholic church are not democratic in nature. This means that it simply does not matter how many priests, lay-individuals, bishops, etc. believe in intelligent design. The will of the church is determined solely by an in-session congress of cardinals and the pope in specific passages. All other teachings, arguments, and discussion are purely intended for inducing of thought and learning.

8/20/2005 5:51 PM

Art said...

Hi N.J.,

This is a great discussion and you bring in many reasonable points.

As such, scientifically, there simply should not be any direct evidence of God's involvement in evolution. Therefore, I suppose I shall use the argument of religion as support for Darwinism. To show measurable intelligence in nature would, according to the faith that I have been taught, demostrate that God is fallible.

Just curious, how would measurable intelligence show that God is fallible? Perhaps you are talking about sub-optimal designs?

The will of the church is determined solely by an in-session congress of cardinals and the pope in specific passages.

I defer to you on this, since I am not a Catholic. However, I did hear that Cardinal Shonborn wrote some sort of Catechism for the Catholic Church (I don't know how important that is, though).

8/26/2005 11:27 PM

Nathan said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8/30/2005 12:53 PM

Nathan said...

So my roommate feels that my most recent statement was condescending and lacking in tact and understanding, regardless of how true or untrue it is. He's even gone so far as to say that this is the reason liberals have faired so poorly in the past 12 years. I tried to point out that both sides seemed remarkably bereft of tact over the last little while, and he said that made it even worse. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to fix my point so as to make it more available and accepting. Let me give it a try, though.

Let me start by attempting to reach some common ground. I believe in God. I believe that he was essential to all that we have around us. I have no desire to dispute anything in that regard.

Essentially, there are two reasons I dispute Intelligent Design, and particularly the teaching of intelligent design. One reason is religious in nature. The other reason is... I guess you could say mechanical in nature.

The religious issue I think I've laid out fairly well. I don't believe God wants us to see his hand in nature, and so we shouldn't be able to.

The mechanical issue is a bit more complex. If I lecture or start "informing" anyone, I don't want it to be taken as condecension. I've been studying the philosophy of the scientific method for two years now fairly closely, and I still don't entirely get it. A lot of people say that science is the quest for "truth." I think they're right, but I might put it a little differently. These days, I would say that science is the quest to toss aside what isn't true.

Several years ago, I was taught what a hypothesis was. We all probably know about the hypothesis from high school science. A hypothesis is just a guess about something. Like, "I think tall people are better at basketball than short people." It's a pretty simple hypothesis. To test it, just get a bunch of tall people and a bunch of short people, and see who is better. It wasn't until fairly recently that I was told that the hypothesis isn't quite that simple.

It seems, whenever you make a guess like tall people being good at basketball than short people, science today won't let you stop there. See, modern science takes eeny weeny, super tiny baby steps. Modern scientists force you to make another hypothesis, called the null hypothesis. It's a statement that basically says "I'm wrong." What would be a good null hypothesis for basketball players? "Tall and short players are actually about the same."

So now we have two guesses. "I'm right" and "I'm wrong." So we do the experiment and have tall and short basketball players play against each other. Surprise, surprise. The tall ones do better. Everywhere else in the world, we would then say, "Oh goody, I'm right." Unfortunately, even after all the evidence seems to say that I was right about tall basketball players, modern science doesn't let me say so. Instead, it only let's me say something much weaker. I can say that I probably wasn't wrong. As I mentioned earlier, this is called rejecting the null. It isn't true that tall and short players are about the same.

After that, I'm even allowed to say that the evidence suggests that I might be right. I can't say that I am right. I can only say that the evidence suggests that I am. It's slow. It's frustrating. It's time consuming. It's science. We aren't trying to find what is right. We're trying to find what is definitely not right, so we can cut that part out.

Hopefully that clears up a lot of the jargon I used early. Now let's keep going.

Darwin said that evolution is how we came to be the way we are. His "I'm wrong" statement would be "evolution does not happen." To test this, he needed an experiment that could, if it went one way, show him to probably be correct, and, if it went the other, show him to be incorrect. He figured an easy experiment would be to force a rapid evolution. For example, he could take a bunch of yellow and red roses, cross-polinate 'till they are good and mixed up, then start killing all the red roses. If, after several generations, many more yellow roses start blooming than red, then Darwin could reject the null. He could say, "well, evolution does appear to happen in this case." He didn't prove his hypothesis. But then, there is no "proving" a hypothesis these days. There is only finding some support for it. Since Darwin's time, scientists have essentially been coming up with different "I'm wrong" guesses, so we could get rid of those too.

At this point, an awful lot of things have been ruled out, as support for evolution proceeds.

So that's really all you ID people need to do. Your hypothesis is well know. "The design of our species and maybe the world needed a higher intelligence to happen." Now you just need to come up with an experiment that can get rid of a bit of the "I'm wrong" factor. Regrettablly, that's a bit more difficult for you folks, in my opinion. Essentially, you need to come up with a way to poke holes in your own theory in a rigorously scientific manner. If you can do that. If you can find something that would poke a hole in your theory, but, after experimentation, fails to, other scientists would be forced to pay attention to you.

Until then, the respect you desire will not be forthcoming. Not because your hypothesis may have a religious basis, but because it lacks the rigor of the scientific method, much like Freud lacked any scientific method.

I hope these comments have been useful. I have no desire to fight - though fights can certainly be invigorating! I really just want to provide a simple road map to follow to validate your hypothesis. If you do, I may even have to revise my theological notions.

One last thing, please don't follow into the other obvious trap out there. Never assume that a strike against evolution is a mark in your favor. Such reasoning lends support equally to your theory and the humorous theory of the Flying Spagetti Monster which has been making internet waves of late. Look for experiments that support your theory, and your theory alone.

8/31/2005 11:33 PM

Art said...

Hi N.J.,

As moderator, I found the example in your penultimate comment to be inappropriate (and uncouth). Since your last comment was much better than your penultimate comment, could you please delete your penultimate comment (with the inappropriate material) for me? Thanks.

BTW, you make some good points in your last comment that I would like to respond to sometime. Maybe I'll even feature it on a new thread if that's alright with you.

9/05/2005 10:17 PM

Nathan said...

Hey Art,

I'm willing to, but I'm not sure how. I give you permission to delete it, as moderator, as long as you reference the deletion. I personally prefer the last comment as well. It's usually better to discuss than to argue.

Though I must say, while inappropriate and uncouth, the Freudian example is a real one. It's very embarrassing for my field, let me tell you.

9/06/2005 11:22 AM

Art said...

Thanks N.J., I have deleted the comment. BTW, to delete comments, simply click on the trash can below the comment (you have to be logged in).

9/06/2005 4:16 PM

Post a Comment

<< Return To Main Blog

iDESIGN BLOGROLL:

The Design Paradigm
Design Watch
Creation-Evolution Headlines
Telic Thoughts
Uncommon Descent
ID the Future
ID Plus
CreationEvolutionDesign
Evolution News
Dualistic Dissension
ID in the UK
ID Update
Intelligently Sequenced

PRO-DESIGN SITES:

Access Research Network
IDEA Center
UCSD IDEA Club
ISCID

PRO-EVOLUTION SITES:

Panda's Thumb
Talk Origins
Students for Science and Skepticism at UCI
NAS: Science and Creationism

PRO-CREATION SITES:

Answers in Genesis
Institute for Creation Research
A.E. Wilder Smith
Reasons to Believe
Baraminology News
CreationWiki

OTHER INTERESTING SITES:

American Scientific Affiliation
Richard Sternberg

ANTEATER LINKS:

University of California, Irvine
New University
Irvine Review
School of Biological Sciences
School of Medicine
School of Physical Sciences
Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Science
Henry Samueli School of Engineering
UCI Athletics
UCI Alumni Association

BLOG ARCHIVES:

June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
April 2007

Copyright © iDesign at UCI 2005. The views presented in this web site are our own. By using this site, you signify that iDesign at UCI is not liable for anything. Site maintained by Arthur Asuncion. Template last modified June 15, 2005.