tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14300599.post112115985468809796..comments2023-10-09T07:56:32.564-05:00Comments on Sacramentum Vitae: The Church & evolution againMike Lhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09060404905348849140noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14300599.post-1121714558575348132005-07-18T14:22:00.000-05:002005-07-18T14:22:00.000-05:00In essence, you're distinguishing between design a...In essence, you're distinguishing between design as supernatural intervention and design as naturally "built-in" to processes that are lawlike but not deterministic. If taken to refer only to the macroevolutionary development of the human body, that's fine with me and I think it would be with the Cardinal too. That he failed to make such a philosophically subtle distinction in an Op-Ed piece is hardly surprising. Most readers wouldn't get it, and it skirts the main issue anywhow.<BR/><BR/>That issue is whether <I>the human soul</I> may be considered the outcome of natural processes, whether conceived deterministically or stochastically. Given Catholic doctrine, the answer must be no.Mike Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18100363229707213441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14300599.post-1121587691102023042005-07-17T03:08:00.000-05:002005-07-17T03:08:00.000-05:00I'm afraid I can't quite get on board with the Car...I'm afraid I can't quite get on board with the Cardinal here, at least in terms of the way he has expressed it. It is true that, if evolution is said to have occured through natural selection acting on "random" mutations and without miraculous interventions, the Church must deny that the mutations are random in an absolute sense, as this would put them outside God's providential causation. But there is no theological objection to God working (as Transcendent First Cause) through processes that are naturally indeterminate and stochastic, as he created the universe that had those somewhat "non-mechanistic" properties and yet knew precisely what the outcome would be.<BR/><BR/>So, "randomness" is OK, "unplanned" an unnecessary and illegitimate philosophical deduction. If by "unguided" evolution an evolutionist means that evolution occurs "without supernatural interference or miraculous intervention <I>designed</I> to produce a result otherwise unobtainable naturally", he can use it this way without causing any theological problem. The question of whether his science is right is a separate question altogether.<BR/><BR/>Finally, if the Cardinal means that biological facts demand supernatural insertion during biological history of "information" (as proposed by "intelligent design" theorists), his claim may or may not be true, but it is at least arguable, and the evidence for the proposition is not seen as overwhelming by many Christian and non-Christian scientists. Certainly, it is not a debate the Cardinal has the expertise or authority to make pronouncements about on behalf of the Church.<BR/><BR/>Design posited at the level of the natural order as a whole should be distinguished from claims of needing a multitude of supernatural acts of special creation at various intervals through Earth history to account for macro-evoltion. The best 'net-accessible Thomist critique of "intelligent design" I have seen is E.T. Oakes' response to critics in the First Things archive at http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0104/correspondence-oakes.htmlFr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.com