Custom Search

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Misrepresentation by religion prof:News! Water runs downhill!

Richard A. Rosengarten, Dean and Associate Professor of Religion and Literature at the University of Chicago Divinity School, writes, in the Martin Marty Center's Sightings (6 1 06),
While Cardinal Schoenborn and the Roman Catholic Church's astronomer have officially indicated that it is possible to accept the science of evolution while remaining in good standing with the Church, the idea of intelligent design persists in at least this nation's conversation as a challenge to that claim. And there is less clarity in those discussions than in official pronouncements from a Cardinal and his Church.

It is hard to know what to make of such a breathtaking misrepresentation of the Catholic Church's teachings, coming from an apparently learned source.

A friend writes, sadly, "When I read stuff like this, it depresses me. For it reveals how much power the other side has to tell falsehoods it thinks are true."

Yes, that's just the point. It's unintentional. Most likely, Prof. Rosengarten catually believes he has said something correct. He probably cannot imagine that the Pope really understands that there is an irreconcilable conflict between Christianity and Darwinism. But why can't he? Does he think the Pope is an Episcopalian, baptizing the American elite consensus?

Briefly, the Catholic Church has come out swinging in recent years AGAINST Darwinism, which is precisely the "evolution" that Rosengarten is talking about.

Here's what the Pope now distributes on prayer cards hawked all over Rome:
We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.

So all over the world, people will remind themselves of anti-Darwinism every day.

It's not the FACT of evolution that is controversial in most quarters, but Darwinism, the theory of unplanned and purposeless evolution that is currently forced down everyone's throat.

Bluntly, you cannot remain in good standing with the Catholic Church and also believe, with the Darwinists, that life unfolds without purpose or design. But that's what you would be required to learn and teach in many school systems today.

Now, if you don't want to be or remain in good standing with the Catholic Church, that's fine. Go live your life and be happy. Or, if you must, write a graduate thesis on why consciousness doesn't exist, or coat yourself with yak butter and howl naked at the moon.

Look, whatever. Until you tire of it.

Except ... a word in your ear ... if you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, ask orthodox Catholics who are informed of the Vatican's real view on evolution, which is the opposite of Darwin's. And - on specifically Catholic religious subjects - read the Catechism. The information is free, and way more trustworthy than just some prof's opinion.
If you like this blog, check out my award-winning book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Is Mother Nature really a bitch?

Writing in The Scientist, Lee Silver, a molecular biology and public policy prof, argues that Mother Nature is a bitch and assails leftist eco-freaks who think otherwise. Writing about the strangler fig, a rainforest tree recycler, he writes,
The strangler fig is not the exception but, rather, the rule of the jungle. Nearly every tree is weighed down by vines of different kinds that grow to enormous sizes. Old vines are themselves encrusted with other vines (which are themselves encrusted in moss and fungus). Leaves are eaten by caterpillars or destroyed by leaf-cutting ants. External termite nests, some larger than a person, hang from most older trees, themselves dotted with holes drilled by birds to eat insects living within. Heavily weighted and weakened branches struggle for survival, but eventually lose and break off.

Now, his account of the plant-eat-plant world of the rainforest is absorbing and well-written. But his point of view is ridiculous. All trees die some way, some day. No tree is conscious of its impending fate. So why is Mother Nature a bitch? Why is the strangler fig evidence of nature's malignity? Multitudes of life forms feast on the decomposing trees killed by the strangler. Should they not live? Would the biosphere have a higher, more secure biomass if they didn't? Not likely.

The reality is that death is not only built into the processes of nature but is a necessary part of its self-renewal. Perhaps a necessary part of maintaining a high biomass (high weight of life forms compared to non-living material). We humans quite properly see death as a threat to our consciousness and our relationships, but that's us, seeing life and death as it relates to us. If we can't see death as a necessary and normal part of the recycling of non-sentient or non-intelligent nature, we risk developing some really distorted views of nature. For example, seeing routine recycling or error checking as evidence of "bitchiness."

Silver has a better argument when he talks about the barrenness of the Sahara desert, which was once verdant. There, Mother Nature is definitely being a BITCH. It's one thing for her to insist that every man has his hour and every dog his day and every tomcat his nine lives - and then the vaudeville hook at last. After all, there are other men, dogs, and tomcats waiting in the wings.

What's the alternative? If life forms had been immortal, the trilobites would still be here and we wouldn't. But to suppress life over large areas like the Sahara - now that's bitchy, I agree.

Silver also advances the suggestion that a green Sahara might have been the biblical Garden of Eden. About that, I say only this: Everyone seems to be in the religion business these days, but the sale of dog collars remains static. His main target is actually not the usual one, Christians, but people who accept the Gaia hypothesis, thus thinking the planet is bet seen as a coherent multi-organism system, rather than a Darwinian competition of all against all.

For some reason, Silver implies that most people who think that there is purpose behind nature would oppose greening up the Sahara. (" ... how does an emotional attachment to the spirit of Mother Nature color one's views concerning the morality of using biotechnology to genetically alter plants and animals for the benefit of humankind, or the biosphere itself?")

The fact is, we humans don't know how to green up the Sahara.

Actually, we would do it in a flash if we could. The big problem would be settling all the fights over land claims. It would be the wild East instead of the wild West.

As is typical for Darwinists, Silver sneaks design into his argument without admitting it: Arguing that nature shows no overarching guidance or purpose, he writes,

In fact, the natural world hews closer than any modern democracy to Adam Smith's laissez-faire model of human economic activity. Nature has no central authority of any kind to which species are beholden. Organisms don't abide by any rules of competition, and no safety net exists for losers. Through rational analysis alone, anyone able to accept the idea that a complex and "vibrant" economy can evolve in the absence of a unified spirit should also be willing to accept the idea that complex ecosystems can evolve in the absence of any overarching multi-organismal spirit of any kind.

In other words, if you think free markets can work, you should think that nature can work without guidance, now or ever, from an overarching spirit.

But wait a minute! Adam Smith was writing about the "invisible hand" of capitalism - the idea that markets, left alone by government, can regulate themselves. Yes they can - in a setting where force, fraud, waste, and disorganization have been banished. But how can these elements be banished?

Adam Smith's invisible hand was really a large number of visible hands: the hands of managers, bookkeepers, police constables, inventory clerks, security staff, and bailiffs, among others - of all who prevent the destruction of markets by force, fraud, and waste, and disorganization. And behind all those hands were, and are today, thinking minds.

In reality, Smith was arguing against politically motived government interference that often destabilizes a system that would right itself quickly if left to the variety of human intelligences that constantly organize and reorganize it. That is actually far more like an "overarching multi-organismal spirit," though most of us would be content to call it merely a consensus for the common good.

No, it's no use looking to Adam Smith to escape design.
If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Snatches of conversation: On Darwinism and Marxism

Talking with a friend, I commented,
"Darwinists are like the Marxists I remember from my youth: For Marxists, the very existence of any social problem was evidence of the need for Marxism. For Darwinists, the very existence of evolution is evidence of the need for Darwinism as the only way to interpret it.

Like Marxists, Darwinists can tolerate no other theory and no other interpretations. And like Marxists, Darwinists have their fellow travellers - people concerned to preserve "the teaching of evolution" in schools - in context, to prevent any evidence-based criticism of Darwinism.

Amazing numbers of these fellow travelers need me to know, for some reason, that they flounce off to church on Sundays - as if I care! They ask me to ignore what I have learned. If their god approves that, well, they go to the right church - for them. But I, thankfully, do not.

My friend replied,
Years ago, during a late night discussion with some Marxist intellectuals, I made the claim that no science is completely objective, i.e., evidence-based, and completely free of subjective elements. Someone in the group disagreed, claiming that there was at least one science that IS completely objective. I asked him what it was. I expected him to say "physics" and I was prepared for that, but his answer left me speechless. "The Marxist view of history, of course," he said with absolute conviction.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove ?

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

O’Leary’s comments on Francis Beckwith, a Dembski associate, being denied tenure at Baylor.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.
Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment are rarely accepted. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudesby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.

Who links to me?