Cogitando sic, the method of evolution

As a scientific theory, evolution certainly does rely on randomness. (It causes the mutations that natural selection acts upon.) I don't think we can argue about that. But Catholics don't believe that randomness - an occult agency if there ever was one - has control like that. So we must be careful about accepting the theory of evolution in its entirety.

Fortunately, the theory of evolution is dodgy in its entirety. That's speaking as a scientific person. We should accept evolution's facts - the fossil record, the Earth's age and so on - but hold back on interpreting those facts in the conventional way.

The "utter absence of randomness" is something you and I can agree on, Alb

Rex

I don't know of anyone who denies evolution except Creationists (and I am not one).

It's not a matter of us evolving to understand evolution, as you put it Seven, but of us adjusting the theory of evolution to make logical sense.

As for time, of course it exists. But like evolution it's something we need to "adjust".

Jesus said "before Abraham was I am". That should give pause for thought to anyone who thinks we are a slave to time!

Interestingly, science is also sceptical of the traditional notion of time. In Einstein's block universe, time does not flow but is a logical connection between space-time events

Rex

I actually like Richard Dawkins' writing (at least his first half dozen books - I haven't read The God Delusion). Not only does he write attractively, what he says is much-needed wake-up call to many Christians. Let's face it - Christianity has its fair share of superstition.

As a scientific person I read The Selfish Gene more than twenty years ago and was immediately captivated by the beauty of the theory Dawkins was putting forward. For my branch of science, physics, his theory was especially interesting because it was based on stability, something that physicists can relate to. (Stability is minimisation of energy).

In my youthful enthusiasm I tried to explain the theory to my colleagues and found that I didn't understand it. It took me 10 years to find out what the problem was: Dawkins was hiding assumptions behind his attractive writing, in particular behind his metaphors (eg "selfish" gene).

You mention, Marie, that evolution has the status of a "theory" in science (and not the lesser status of a philosophic position).

It's essential to realise that scientists come in two categories, basically distinguished by whether they use mathematics or not. Dawkins is the figurehead for the non-mathematical (metaphor) camp. Einstein is the figurehead for the mathematical camp. Evolution is well supported by the Dawkins camp but the Einstein camp is more sceptical.

For instance, many on the Einstein side are working on a "theory of everything" (TOE) which is supposed to explain why the world is the way it is and not something different. Suppose that this theory turns out to be H = 0 (under suitable interpretation of H, of course!) The Dawkins camp would immediately alter it to read "H = 0, plus natural selection" then proceed to delete the "H = 0" part. In other words, they think they can explain everything with natural selection (the anthropic principle being one of their natural selection tools).

The point is that there is a serious division between two groups of scientists. The dispute hinges on how each side handles the question of randomness. Physicists have no fundamental need of such an hypothesis, seeing randomness as science's "God of the gaps". The Dawkins' camp is absolutely dependent on randomness being real.

I would advise anybody attracted to evolutionary theory to resolve the issues before putting their faith in it.

I also agree with you, Marie, that evolution is not an alternative to religion. However, the reason that it's important in a religious context is that there is a scientific solution to the evolution problem, which just happens to be a marvellous synthesis between science and an intelligent religious view of the world. If you were beginning to despair that godless science was taking over the world, or that God might indeed be an hypothesis that we don't have need of, I encourage you to be patient!

Rex

RexCoelstis, this goes to the question you raised above in the topic posting: Can anyone confirm that "proof by cogitando sic" makes Latin sense?

I am now persuaded that Cicero today would likely define "the method of evolution" thusly (sic); "perficiendo cogitata cogitando sic perfecta (working through and thinking through the thus worked-through and thought-through thoughts).

I now withdraw my "1" vote for the original posting and raise it to a "10". I do not see how I can otherwise recast my vote.

The discussion here very much pertains to discussions in "The Search for Ultimate Reality, Discussion Number Thirteen" [Spirituality and Culture]

I am at a bit of a disadvantage here because I have not devoted a lot of time to studying Richard Dawkins' writing or the nuances of argument pertaining to evolution. To be perfectly honest, in studying evolution in the context of college anthropology, I was not convinced that it was the last word on the subject--it seemed to be the best they could offer given the information available at the time. It never seemed to contradict belief in a Creator, however. It only contradicted Creationist beliefs, which is a good thing in my opinion since Creationism fails to grasp the deeper message of the Bible.

Nevertheless, answering the how of things, which is what science does, does not answer the why. Therefore, I have a lot of reservations about the Intelligent Designer proposition, which seems to overstep the boundaries of what science may legitimately offer. As theories come and go, faith would get more support at times and less at others. To have faith depend on science would contradict the definition of faith. Furthermore, the Intelligent Designer proposition ignores the preeminent importance of Christ in the world, in relationship to humanity, and as God.

In the chapter of The God Delusion that Dawkins makes available online, there is a definite denial of the existence of a personal God. He seems upset by what happens when scientists like Einstein cannot explain some aspect of their theory and attribute it to God in the metaphorical sense, and it then is taken as basis for belief in God. While I see such statements as the equivalent of saying that there are questions still open, Dawkins seems to be saying that since some nonscientists mistakenly take a scientist's references to God as substantiated proof of God, their belief in God has no validity. I think he draws an erroneous conclusion.

The more we learn, the more we realize there is to know. When scientist talk about God in the way Dawkins does or the way the proponents of Intelligent Design do, they seem to me to be trying to put themselves above God or to put limits on God. It is just as intellectually limiting as Creationism, in my opinion.

Marie, you say "To have faith depend on science would contradict the definition of faith." I don't have a big problem with that, except to say that faith depends on reason as religion depends on "science" (meanining scientia, learning). Science to me is more than the "scientific method", it is collective knowledge, composite wisdom. Too often the word science is used pejoratively and in the limited sense of scientific method and not in the sense that it is an essential part in the dynamic of faith formation. And that is what creates a lot of confusion and friction.

Sylvester,

I wonder if we need to make a distinction between faith that there is a higher power and the specifically Christian faith that takes a higher power for granted and identifies it as God who is in permanent contact with his creation and goes to great lengths to interact with human beings in terms that they can understand. It seems to me that the reason, knowledge, and wisdom are evidence of our trying to find ways to communicate with God in his terms. To a degree, it no doubt pleases God that we desire this, but it also resembles trying to engage in a struggle for control with God in that we are not content to accept his attentions and respond, but rather want to demystify what we experience as coming from him.

Marie, aren't the "distinctions" you make not about faith, not about two kinds of faith, but about human awareness of faith or lack thereof? and isn't there a danger in taking anything for granted? Namely, that we get lazy about what we take for granted (faith) and put expectations in one direction, that faith and its works don't rely on us but on God.

I believe there is a natural/divine reciprocity at work in nature that goes something like this: humanity depends on divinity as divinity depends on hemanity. For if we believe in divine instance in nature then we believe in divine instance in us and our obligation to emulate and represent in nature the presence (instance) of divinity.

I don't see that "reason, knowledge, and wisdom are evidence...[of] trying to engage in a struggle for control with God in that we are not content to accept his attentions and respond, but rather want to demystify what we experience as coming from him"; rather, I think of it as conscionable effort to know God's will better and become as Godlike as our senstivities allow. The bad consequences of our abuses of nature, for example, are not things about which we should quiet our consciences; our disengaged faith might tempt us to say they are God's will.

Maybe I'm missing your point altogether.

Sylvester, you make good points about using reason to know God's will better. Science can certainly be a tool in that pursuit, since (as I think you say) by knowing better the natural world that science studies, we can manage it better in accordance with God's will, which we know is for us to manage it responsibly. This is not why I wanted to make the distinction in faith.

The point that I am making is that while science is only one way--a narrow way--of looking at the world, there is a tendency to think that when science does not support the claims of religion then it negates them. I think this is because scientists are making up the definitions and setting the standards, and some scientists, as I think Rex Coelestis means to point out, not only make up the definitions and set the standards science is using, but take those definitions and standards and apply them to religious thought and argument. (Of all the religions, Catholicism is the one that has been drawn most strongly into this game of justifying itself in scientific terms. Hence, we have terminology like "transubstantiation".)

I think Rex Coelestis similarly is trying to play on Dawkins terms, and that the end result will be that his argument will have all the holes in it that someone like Richard Dawkins is trying to fill with his contention that we invented God. Again, I have not read Dawkins in any detail, but I would guess that he would suggest that other creatures have similar delusions that are present only because they have given them an advantage in the natural selection process. Whether or not he claims this, this is where arguing the value of faith in faith leads.

It is not possible to argue that God exists or doesn't exist by using science, and this is why I think the distinction between faith that defers to scientific proof for believing in God and faith that presumes the existence of God is important. If one starts with the presumption that God exists and that Jesus is God, then the burden is on science to prove that God does not exist and to prove that Jesus was not God; to disprove the miracles, to explain the transfiguration, resurrection, ascension, etc. It can't do that. It can't even explain our faith away as it might other faith--as a manifestation of a successful survival strategy. And, where do we get that faith? We feel it, we experience things that strongly suggest God is present and personal, and these fit in just enough with what we are taught to believe but not so perfectly that we can be convinced that we are deluding ourselves. This is faith.

Catholics don't have a problem with evolution/creation because we have always had the notion of "mystery" (as in the Rosary, not a crime novel) and can always park problems there. Individually we also accept God in a personal relationship so that we can complain to him secretly about things that bother us. Creationists don't seem to have that personal relationship - they want things to be "legal" and go beserk in public if any trivial thing seems to be out of place. Creation/evolution certainly is a trivial thing to be bothered by.

I think it's important to understand why "Intelligent Design" is misguided (at least if the intelligent designer is supposed to be God). It is misguided because if it were true - ie, if the world were evidence of God-the-designer - then we would know for certain that God exists. We would be certain of his existence because we would "see" him in his creation.

But it's wrong to be certain (ie, to have proof) of God's existence. "Seeing" God would contradict the Fall. We were thrown out of the garden so that we couldn't see him. (He can always see us, of course). Having proof of God would also make faith unnecessary. But I'm sure you know these things already Marie! (I have been trawling John Allen's column and came across your name in matters of theology)

Interestingly, there is a scientific case for suggesting the intelligent designer is man. The main reason is that some of the things of this world are clearly made by man - cars, computers, etc - being the work of man's free will. Insofar as science doesn't have a distinction between man-made things and natural things (especially if free will is a "natural" thing), then everything is in the same category. So if some things were made by man, then all things were.

Of course, if man does make the world, he must do it unconsciously because it is obvious that lots of things are not made by him consciously. Intriguingly, there is scientific evidence that man's free will does act unconsciously. The main evidence is Benjamin Libet's experiments on free will in the 1960s (which you might already know about) but the "Anthropic Principle" whereby man unconsciously sets the early conditions of the Universe can be considered evidence of man's creative activity too.

Genesis, too, can be interpreted to say that the world was made by man. Man did something in the garden and a different world suddenly appeared. It seems that the new world's appearance was caused by what man did, ie, man created the new world. In this interpretation, God created the world that existed before the Fall and man (unconsciously) created the world that existed after. The thing that would put a spanner in this interpretation is if man were part of the world that was created after the Fall. That would involve the logical nonsense of man creating himself. Fortunately, Genesis indicates that man was the same after the Fall as he was before - but his surroundings had changed...

Needless to say, Creationists don't like this interpretation anymore than the evolution account.

Rex

I tend to believe that we do influence things--as in the course of events--by how we think of them, consciously and unconsciously. However, the element from which we manufacture things exist no matter what we think. They would exist if human beings became extinct. I think the world a lot more concrete than your philosophical/scientific speculation seems to allow.

Dennis, thanks for the brevity. (I appreciate it in others though I sin myself!) Unfortunately the problem over the reality of objects is something one either sees or doesn't. The problem goes back to antiquity and is still considered unresolved. Until now we have had the liberty of ignoring the problem, but evolution forces the issue.

What are the things that comprise "reality"? In the Book of the World's Real Things, what is listed therein? We used to think it was the things we see. But logically that means that real things are defined by a seeing process.

(That is the hard part for many people. They have spent a lifetime looking at reality and not seeing themselves looking at it. To a philosopher or scientist, however, the words speak for themselves. If reality consists of the things we see, then "seeing" defines reality. It's as simple as that!)

Scientists have always been unhappy about the reality of things being dependent on people seeing them. They want a reality that exists "in itself". Traditionally they have solved the problem with mathematics. If mathematics (ie, physical law) predicts the existence of an object, then there is no need for a person to see it.

However, evolution throws a spanner in the mathematical works. Evolution has an essential requirement for randomness (as in mutation, or "variation" as it is generally called these days). This rules out mathematical modelling and throws us back on observation. The things that evolution produces - plants and animals - need to be observed before they become real objects in our world.

If we imagine evolution producing a new species of animal that we don't know about it, we don't accept it as real until we see it. This is not a matter of the animal existing in itself and us being ignorant of it. No. To be ignorant of something, someone has to know what it is that we are ignorant of (otherwise the concept of "ignorant" doesn't make sense). When all people - ie, everybody - is "ignorant", the thing we are ignorant of does not exist.

These days, scientists informally solve the problem of how to get an independent reality without people needing to see it by defining reality as the things that contribute to the logic of the world. If we see something, that "thing" will contribute to the logic of the world. The same goes if we hear, smell, or touch something. The same goes if we deduce something by mathematics. If by whatever means we come to believe that a contribution is being made to the logic of the world, the object making that contribution is real.

This amounts to replacing observation by logic. It is logic that sees things, not people. Incidentally, since God does not contribute to the logic of the world, God is not real (in the scientific scheme of things).

This scientific solution to the observation problem is clever but quite radical. It says that "real" things are not defined by the things "existing in themselves"! Unfortunately, many ordinary people - especially religious people? - still imagine reality as "things existing in themselves". Thus God and lots of other things are real because they exist in themselves. It might be true that God exists in himself (I certainly believe it!) but we mustn't say that. To engage with a scientific world we need to respect the methods of science. In the case of God, that means showing the contribution to the world's logic that he is supposed to make. (And I don't for one moment think that his existence is proved by "the world".)

To get back to evolution, the contribution to the logic of the world that a new species makes starkly depends on physical observation. As I said, we have to SEE a meringue-utan before it is real. Because of the randomness in evolutionary theory, we cannot predict the arrival of any species. The watchmaker is indeed blind, as Richard Dawkins has so eloquently put it. To repeat, we are absolutely dependent on observation. And that means we are dependent on an observer...

If you are not convinced, Dennis, you are in respectable company! However, there are a dozen other reasons to be sceptical of evolution. As a Christian (and presumably not a Creationist) you might like to consider the question of randomness that I mentioned. Do you really think that God has unleashed randomness in the world? Do you think that things "happen" without his will? If you think that God secretly tweaks randomness to give results that he wills, how do you square that with science?

I believe the answer is to give up randomness. It may surprise many non-scientific people to learn that, with one exception, science has no need for randomness (except in a practical sense). The one exception is evolutionary theory. In other branches of science, randomness is not fundamental and can be finessed away. In evolutionary theory, the whole house of cards collapses if we take away randomness as a causal agent.

So the first two reasons to be sceptical of evolutionary theory are (1) the reality of the animals produced by evolution requires a process of observation; and (2) evolution has a quasi-mystical dependence on randomness (sometimes said to be science's "God of the gaps")

Rex

I too believe in God's love. (and also that he is a person rather than a green crystal or some other "presence").

I also believe in science, and it is science that has the problems with evolution. (Creationists also have problems with evolution, but that is an entirely different matter.)

John Haught, from what you quote of him, seems to accept evolution as an independent truth. That is a pity. All of us should be cautious about embracing evolutionary theory until its problems are ironed out.

On that note, I wonder if the Pope left himself an "out" when he accepted evolution? I can quite understand why he made the statement that he did - ie, to counter the excesses of Creationism. But it would be nice to know that he left room for a future Pope to recant. Are you able to shed light on that, Michael?

Rex

Vatican II acknowledges that reality is all "of a piece" (Gaudium et spes, Introduction, #5)

Even Pope John Paul II stated that evolution is "more than a theory". I think you are dreaming if you think any future pope will "recant" on evolution. Benedict's book on evolution will eventually be translated from German into English, and will open the conversation even more, I suspect.

Thank you for that reference, Sylvester - I hope I get the time to look it up. (I am also hoping that someone will give me the text of the Vatican statement on evolution.)

My use of the word "recant" was a bit extreme (and I recant). I now understand (but could be wrong) that the Vatican statement on evolution was not exactly a "Papal" statement (and certainly not ex cathedra) but more of a guidance for the faithful. If intended to dissuade Catholics from Creationist excesses, it certainly has my support.

However, I hope that the Vatican statement doesn't go overboard in swallowing the evolution line in its entirety. There are severe scientific and philosophical problems to be ironed out...

Since the Catholic Church has always had a respect for intelligence, I am moderately hopeful that intelligent people will have prevailed.

(The Wikipedia entry on evolution indirectly shows some of the philosophical problems. If you look behind the scenes at the contributions from the experts, you will see a debate over how a species is to be defined. It mirrors a debate that Huxley and others had at the time of Darwin.)

Rex

“Gaudium et Spes”
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World
SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL
December 7, 1965

Introduction #5
“History itself speeds along on so rapid a course that an individual can scarcely keep abreast of it. The destiny of the human community has become all of a piece, where once the various groups of men had a kind of private history of their own. Thus, the human race has passed from a rather static concept of reality to a more dynamic, evolutionary one. In consequence, there has arisen a new series of problems, a series as important as can be, calling for new efforts of analysis and synthesis.”
_____________
Joseph Gremillion, “The Gospel of Peace and Justice, Catholic Social Teaching since Pope John”, pg 247, copyright © 1976, Orbis Books, Maryknoll, N.Y. 10545

Sylvester - again, thank you. I took up your earlier suggestion regarding Benedict's book in German - searched on Google and found some very encouraging English comment on the book. I had been reluctant to read John Paul's 1965 statement on evolution because I thought he had done the wrong thing. However the new pope seems to have made an excellent adjustment to the position, in particular making it clear that scientific philosophy - and not scientific fact - is where evolution's difficulties lie. The Church appears now to be in an excellent position to present the truth once the truth becomes known. It is remarkable that the pope - who might seem a little out of touch in some areas - can get things right on evolution in spite of not knowing the answer...

Cardinal Schonburg is also on the right track. On Beliefnet he is quoted saying: "(Evolution) is not primarily a religious question, but one of reason. Can one reasonably say the origin of man and of life can be explained only by material causes? Can matter create intelligence? This question cannot be answered scientifically, because the scientific method cannot grasp it. Here we can only argue philosophically, metaphysically, or religiously."

Later he says -

"The argument that the whole complexity of life can be explained as mere random process is unreasonable in my opinion."

This too is very heartening.

The one thing that disheartens me is that the church does not have a mechanism for learning the scientific truth. It's possible that the Vatican is relying on the scientific branch of the the Jesuits for advice, but on the SJ site one of the Jesuits (Paul Gabor) complains of lack of Vatican support!

Lack of church interest in science is also confirmed by John L Allen's postings on NCR. In 230 Vatican news items he has only about 3 on theology and none on science! Since the prevailing scientific worldview is the main reason why people have become impatient with religion and are leaving the church in droves, I would have expected the Vatican to have a greater dialog with science. If you know of a Vatican science forum, Sylvester, I would be pleased to learn about it. (Better still, do you have Benedict's email address?)

Pope Benedict's email: benedettoxvi@vatican.va

The following is a posting I made at www.acolyte.gather.com quite some time back:
"Vatican warms, in the Cold War between Faith and Reason
VATICAN II UPDATE: The STOQ initiative (Science, Theology and the Ontological Quest) by the Pontifical Council for Culture signals perhaps a thaw in the centuries-old faith/ reason war. STOQ points to a universal (cosmic?) faith consciousness consistent with science; the project is funded by the John Templeton Foundation.

The ongoing war between faith and reason fueled the Thirty Years Wars of Religion (1618-1648), the conflicts between the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation, between orthodoxy and Enlightenment, and in recent times between Vatican I Dominion Theology (politics) and Vatican II Liberation Theology (politics). The question: Is Rome serious about reconciling faith and reason, religion and science?

"Aggiornamento", updating, characterized the intention of Pope John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council to update faith with scientific understandings of the evolutionary worldview. (Gaudium et spes, Intro., #5) Forty years after Vatican II, pastoral theology remains tridentine and uninfluenced by science. Is this about to change?

The Pontifical Council for Culture, and the Pontifical Universities in Rome, The Gregorian, The Lateran, and The Athenaeum, have within the last several years embarked on the project of "Science, Theology and The Ontological Quest" (STOQ), with research studies at the universities "in order to confront the Christian vision of the world, man and society with the many theoretical, ethical and cultural challenges raised by the development of science." (Emphasis added)

The three universities, with the Pontifical Council, will "be immersed over three years into different research programs…courses will be recognized within each university and can be inserted into the student curricula." (Emphasis added)

The STOQ Project "is directed at students, scientists, philosophers, theologians, and all those interested in deepening the rational basis of their faith, or exploring the possibility of being believers at the beginning of the Third Millennium." (Emphasis added) www.stoqnet.org

UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS:
The Gregorian: www.unigre.it. Email: sciephil@unigre.it [Science and Philosophy Specialization] "The aim of the specialization is to integrate philosophical studies with recent developments in the natural sciences. We will consider the implications of the development of contemporary sciences for philosophy and our understanding of God. The centre of interest is represented by critical epistemology and the foundations of the philosophy of nature. Ultimately, the purpose is to integrate areas of interest that have become separated in modern times."

The Lateran: www.pul.it Email: basti@pul.it, pierocoda@microelettra.it [Research Program on ] "The program strengthens the existing specialization (license) curricula of: in the Faculty of Philosophy, devoted to deepening the relationship between scientific and philosophical knowledge of reality; in the Faculty of Theology, devoted to developing dialogue between Religions. The strengthening mainly consists in inviting several scholars of science, philosophy and theology."

The Athenaeum: www.upra.org Email: mastersf@upra.org [Diploma in Science and Faith] "The Diploma in Science and Faith offers a competent scientific-cultural approach to the urgent problems concerning the relationship between science and faith. To this end, it brings together experts and resources from the Athenaeum's three faculties, philosophy, theology and the new faculty of bioethics, as well as the direct participation of renowned guest speakers, professors, and scientists. The lectures, conferences, seminars and site visits integrate perspectives provided by the most up-to-date scientific research, thereby granting a uniquely well-grounded vision of the relationship between science and faith..."

We, the People of God, owe it to God, Church, each other and ourselves to take on our own spiritual updating as called for by Vatican II, and now by the Pontifical Council.

We are Church. Updating doesn't happen unless and until it happens with the people. Today's many social/ ecological catastrophes, crises, and problems cry for the human family to live authentically, sustainably — FAITHFULLY. Updating has too long been avoided. It needs to happen locally, now! Putting it off is clearly not justified morally, practically, or rationally. Encouraging as the STOQ Project is, its prospect of trickle-down change falls short.

Faith, universal in religious rationale, and action are needed now. A universal rationale for authentic faith and action consistent with Christian conscience already exists in the form of a faith formation manual, "The Possible Journey, Uncompromised Trust". We, the People, by virtue of investment in personal conscience and Church, are obliged to act on behalf of all humankind and life on Earth. We have the insight to do it. Let's do it.

[Review and download free THE POSSIBLE JOURNEY, Uncompromised Trust, at www.secondenlightenment.org]

I was not being serious when I asked for the Pope's email address! and am quite suprised that it exists like this. However it is possible that "benedettoxvi" hits the discard-without-reply "black hole" - do you know where it ends up, Sylvester?

Your article on the 'acolyte' site is interesting. (and that site is much more readable than this one). I wonder if the STOQ programs have come up with anything yet? being halfway through the 3 years mentioned. I must look up the STOQ website you mentioned. The science/religion interface is certainly a major interest of mine

No, I don't. But the pope isn't the only person who disregards me. That doesn't bother me. I do what my best judgment tells me to do, and that is enough to make me happy.

You say, Dennis, that evolution makes more sense than a literal acceptance of Genesis. I hope you don't mean to imply that if evolution is wrong, Genesis must be right. It's always possible, of course, that the truth lies in a third direction.

The good thing about evolution is that it is well supported by facts. The bad thing is that it has logical problems. In science, when there is a dispute between facts and logic, logic wins.

So we need to be careful about how we interpret the facts of evolution. That's not to say the facts are wrong. They just don't mean what we are accustomed to think they mean.

The simplest way out is to accept that the facts of evolution are the facts because they are OBSERVED to be so.
They are not the facts because they are part of some independent "reality".

Evolution's most severe logical problem is the one I mentioned. Namely, if something obtains its reality by being observed, then the observer must exist beforehand. (As usual in science, "reality" is defined as "making a contribution to the logic of the world") If a chair gets its reality by being made by a carpenter, the carpenter must exist before the chair.

Angels do not make a contribution to the logic of the world and are therefore not real in the eyes of science. Neither is God. Neither are meringue-utans or abominable snowpeople. Someone has to go to the jungles of Borneo or the wilds of Alaska and see one of these creatures before we accept them as real. It doesn't matter if meringue-utans have evolved independently and exist in themselves. If we don't know about them ie, they don't make a contribution to the logic of our world, they are not real elements of our world (ie, they are not real).

Rex

1.I don't accept the literality of Genesis, regardless of the theory of evolution.
2.The process of evolution does not obtain its reality by being observed any more than the proverbial tree falling in the woods requires anyone to hear it.
3.To attest that positing a "theory of evolution" requires a preexisting observer is simply nonsense.

My dear friend the late James N. Studer, OSB, gave me to understand that the only "reality" is relationship. In deep wave/particle matter as in the cosmos itself all is in process. We are not now what we were a minute ago. Our physicality is in process of constantly being remade, which enables (and requires) the remaking of consciousness. It is counter-intuitional, counter-rational and counter-relational to get tied up in object fixation. The forms of energy (evolved substance-matter) are apt for their energetic (spiritual) qualities — the physical and metaphysical are in continuing process of correlating, remaking. This is at the heart of the liberating potential of evolution, in fact and in consciousness.

RexCoelestus~ Why not "not exactly right"? A science reject, I do however respect science and the "scientific method". I read recently that the anthropologists have "sort-of" been challenged to modify the (human)evolution theory somewhat because of a newly identified, apparent overlap or intermix of humanoid threads. That, to me, could very well be progress in what, I would term, the "series of successive approximations" approach to human learning.

Animals learn by touch and feel and seldom, if ever rise above it, humans quite frequently "leap" or intuit to conclusions or the recognition of processes and generalizations from the accumulation of instances or series. It is called intelligence. Many of us may "be wrong" about evolution, but you can't throw evolution out because of "us".

Dennis - It's not a matter of "throwing evolution out", as you put it. It's a matter of accepting that evolution is our invention. (We do the inventing unconsciously, of course.) Evolution is as real as the force of gravity, but no more so.

Many people have trouble seeing the logical problem at the heart of evolution. They are accustomed to treating what they see as "real" and don't see the "seeing process" that they employ when doing this. They unconsciously treat their ability to see things, to judge reality, as somehow outside the world of reality that they judge to exist.

But science doesn't allow "outside" viewpoints like that (which it describes as "mystical" ie, "God's eye" viewpoints). Science insists that if reality is determined by seeing it, then the seeing process is tied up with the reality that is seen.

The only way that reality and observation could be independent is if reality were known to be true without involving observation. That might sound like an easy task - until we find that observation is not just a matter of eyes. In science, "observation" is any objective process leading us to believe something is true. Smell, taste, touch, deduction, etc, will do in place of sight. To eliminate observation from reality, we must avoid all these things - a tall order!

In fact, to make sure we have avoided all taint of human observation in our knowledge of reality, it is probably necessary that we come up with a reality that is true even though we don't believe it to be true. That would be the ultimate scientific test. It would show that reality was entirely divorced from what we believe about it (or observe it to be).

Evolutionary theory is far from passing this test. It is heavily dependent on plausibility.

Rex

I guess I see scientific theory as an educated guess to describe reality. It is an invention insofar that the hypotheses is a statement of what the investigator thinks is happening. The science seeks to support the hypotheses and in so doing, it may support or expand the hypotheses. It may nullify the hypotheses.

You know some of the first science (which is still a work in progress) sought to describe how body systems work. Most of us are aware that early science thought that conceptions occurred because the man contributed a homunculus or a little human and it was implanted in a woman and grew. We can easily scoff at this now but it was the earliest hypotheses that a man and a woman's bodies were somehow both necessary to create the miracle of life. Though the sophistication of the scientific thought has grown by leaps and bounds, what it has done is allowed us to describe more precisely how man and woman interact to create the miracle of life.

Likewise, the description of what actually happens when biological structures change over time, or the study we have named evolution, has generated many thought provoking and complex discussions, probably arcane to many of us outside of the biological sciences, much of the science has supported a notion of the species capacity to change in response to environment, some of it functional, some not so functional. While some things are and are not as Darwin saw them, evolution as described by Darwin was a break through idea in biology.

I'm probably more knowledgeable about human biology and systems as a nurse than anything else. When I study the body's regulatory mechanisms in temperature, fluid and electrolyte balance, cardiac conduction, embryology I am stunned by their interwoven complexity and I see the hand of God. As science changes and makes us rethink cherished ideas, I see that as the complexity of God revealed but I do not see it as a repudiation of science.

So I am always puzzled when I meet people who seem to be saying you can either have God or you can have science but you cannot have both.

We, the scientists and the christians, are imperfect learners, imperfect studiers. Trying to understand ideas that are much bigger than we can comprehend(the vastness of God). We can only study science with the imperfection of the tools we have at hand.

Religion and theology and bioethics and science inform each other. But all have unique things to offer. They certainly do bump up against each other. Viva the conflict. But woe betide if one seeks to absolutely constrain the other. It is never good for mankind.

You say, Molly, that "scientific theory is an educated guess to describe reality." Unfortunately that very statement is where the problem lies. The statement assumes that something which you call "reality" pre-exists and is the starting point for everything else.

In science it is not good to have hidden assumptions - they must be brought out into the open. You could do that by saying at the start "Assuming that something called reality mystically pre-exists..."

Of course, if you do start off that way, you immediately invite questions like "Why do you assume that? What does your so-called "reality" consist of?" And so on.

Science is muddling towards an answer to this problem. The current state of play, more or less, is that reality consists of things that contribute to the logic of the world. This is not the same as things existing in themselves. Angels might exist in themselves, but even if they do, they are not considered real by scientists because they do not contribute to the logic of the world.

We are gradually populating the world with real things as we carry out our science. Things that don't contribute to the logic of the world do not exist, as a matter of definition. When we discover a new thing, we enter its name in the Book of the World's Real Objects and it obtains reality. At the same time as we make this entry, we give the thing a history compatible with its present reality. This history will of course extend back into the dim past. It is necessary that we give the object a history because an object that suddenly came to exist without a history would be illogical. At no point do we assume a pre-existing world of things that we somehow stumble across. The moment we make an assumption like that we leave science behind and head into the land of mysticism (in the scientific sense of that word - not St Teresa's!)

So that's how reality comes to exist - by things making an entry into the world's logic. Scientists are beavering away trying to work out the logic that creates reality in this way. The logic seems to have a connection with man's observation capacity, but cannot be entirely dependent on man because one of the objects contributing to the logic of the world is man himself. It would be illogical for man to observe himself into reality. (He would have to pre-exist to do that!)

Yes evolution was a breakthrough idea at the time - but it could be time to move on. Certainly it would be crazy to suppose that evolution in its present form is entirely correct.

Rex

Rex Coelestis, I have a bit of a problem with "At no point do we assume a pre-existing world of things that we somehow stumble across". It seems to me that all of us begin with a sense of things pre-existing and our stumbling across them, because for each individual there was a pre-existing world that he or she stumbled across by being born. It seems the most natural thing in the world to assume the pre-existing world and not at all metaphysical until we take our newfound awareness of this pre-existing world and speculate whether anything or everything pre-existed, or not, some consciousness greater than our own. This idea of the world's logic seems considerably more obscure and unscientific than the sense of there being a concrete reality based on our experience of it.

In science, something exists if it makes a contribution to the logic of the world. Something that has no impact on the world - no impact whatsoever (such as God, in scientists' eyes) - doesn't exist. It might exist in someone's imagination, but it cannot be said to be "real" as far as our scientific world is concerned.

With that definition of reality in mind, let us imagine that evolution, having beavered away for a billion years, produces a new species of animal (I have called the animal "meringue-utan". It sounds like an animal of that name should exist!) Suppose we haven't seen the animal and have no reason to think that such a thing might exist ie, we can't even imagine it. Is the animal a real object of our world? No.

For something to be real, it has to have some logical impact on our world. If we can't even imagine the thing, let alone see it, then the thing doesn't have the tiniest impact and you would be crazy to tell other people that it is real.

Now let us suppose that the animal in question is "discovered" ie, seen to exist. At that point it becomes a real object of our world and we proceed to fit it into the world's logic. We fit the animal into the world's logic by giving it a "self" to make it a thing-in-itself, by expecting it to continue to exist into the future, by presuming it was produced by some logical pathway extending into the past (evolution), and so forth. We make all these rationalisations after we see the animal, and it's something we do unconsciously. Because we make these rationalisations unconsciously, we don't see ourselves making them. We just jump to the assumption that the animal "must have existed all along" and that we "stumbled" across it. But things do not necessarily agree with our assumptions.

If something is not real but then we do something and it becomes real, it is reasonable to suppose that what we did caused the thing to become real. For instance, if a chair doesn't exist but we do something in the basement and the chair comes to exist, then it is reasonable to suppose that what we did in the basement (some carpentry) created the chair. In the world of science, there is no difference between us creating a chair and us creating any other object that makes a contribution to the world's logic. And if it is our seeing an object that brings it into the logic of our world, then it is our seeing that creates it.

(In science we don't use the word "creates". We say instead that our observation "selects" one of a huge number of pre-existing "Many Worlds". It amounts to the same thing.)

You say, Marie, that we stumble across a pre-existing world by being born. Are you sure it is like that? Are you sure the baby doesn't create its own logical world? I'm sure you have your own logical world as much as I have mine.

People want a "concrete reality" as a crutch to lean on. They think that if there is a concrete reality and they learn how to treat it the right way, then they will live forever. It is perhaps the greatest finding of modern science (mathematical science, not Richard Dawkins' science) that a concrete reality does not exist. Science says we unconsciously choose reality by our unconscious "measurement" of the world.

Genesis can be interpreted as supporting this view. It says that the original sin was a matter of choosing "knowledge" to live by. Knowledge implies facts ie, reality. It seems that Adam and Eve committed the logical error of believing their beliefs were unreliable, and created a superstitious "reality" as something concrete they could put their faith in.

But they should have put their faith in faith itself... (as Julie Andrews once said!)

Shortly before you presented this topic on the forum, my sons (one of whom is majoring in physics) and I were joking around with "cogito, ergo sum" and ended with "does that mean if I do not think, then I am not"? It seems as if you would answer yes to that because in science it is the case that things are not factored into the equation until they are known. However, for things to become known, they have to exist without our having invented them.

What we invent and reinvent is the world view, not the things in it. You existed before we began this conversation (I am assuming), but until we began this conversation, I thought my sons and I were just having some fun. However, now I am fitting your decision to address this topic and our happening to consider pretty much the same thing into a larger scheme. However, instead of thinking your thoughts and our thoughts came together in some cosmic way to make this topic, I ponder whether a higher power suggested it our unconsciousnesses.

I am not sure why you think that Adam and Eve (real people?) committed a logical error in believing their beliefs were unreliable and wonder what you consider superstitious about the reality they supposedly believed in. Whether or not you take the creation story literally, it seems that it is saying that they gained awareness of evil by not obeying God. It seems that you are saying there is no such thing and that faith is psychologically useful but that all the teachings of religion are otherwise meaningless.

Your mention of "cogito ergo sum" reminds me of a recent joke I read in The Tablet:

Descartes goes into a bar. He orders a beer and soon finishes it.

"Another?" asks the barman.

"I think not," replies Descartes, and disappears.

(I must admit it took me a while to get it...)

Descartes was trying to arrive at the most fundamentally existent thing. His famous statement purports to show that the very fact that he can think implies that he exists: "I think, therefore I exist".

There are many modern variations notably the scientific one: "I exist, therefore I think" (often directed at religious people who don't think but follow dogma.)

Descartes said "I think" and then concluded that he existed. But he might equally have concluded that THINKING existed. "I think, therefore thinking exists". A variation of this is "I believe, therefore believing exists" (which in Latin might be "Credo, ergo est fides").

The reason I like this version is that it puts 'believing' ahead of everything else - even ahead of reality. For instance, you Marie believe that reality is the fundamentally existent thing. If you look at those words, you will see that "you believing something" logically comes before the thing you believe in ("reality"). So you believing in reality comes before the reality you believe in. This is proved by the fact that you might have believed in something else as the fundamentally existent thing (God, perhaps). Whatever it is you believe in, your ability to believe logically occurs first.

People who think that reality exists first (ie, ahead of belief) find themselves in trouble. They need to show that real things exist before they believe them to. Philosophers and scientists have tried to prove this for centuries, and failed. Most people have long ago given up on the question and just ASSUME there is a reality - "proof-by-assumption". (Another erroneous proof to be added to "proof-by-assertion", "proof-by-quoting-someone-else", and "proof-by-having-thought-of-it".)

It's by continuing to fudge logical issues like this (including the issue of what puts the 'self' into a self-existing object) that science cannot make progress on personal identity, free will, etc.

I do in fact believe that God's will is active everywhere and at all times - and that would include right now - but I make my posts in the spirit of science. The problems concerning "reality" are scientific and philosophical rather than religious. They do impinge on religion, but not so much on Catholics. It's Creationists who are bothered by questions of reality because their religion seems to be tied to earthly "proofs".

The "superstition" that Adam and Eve indulged in was the idea that "a world of reality" existed as the fundamentally existent thing. Until that moment they had been content to live by what they believed, not by what they knew. They were content to live without the "proof" that turns "belief" into "knowledge". (Knowledge is "correct belief", where "correct" means "according to reality".)

Genesis is quite explicit on what the Original Sin was: it was the decision to live according to knowledge rather than belief. This was expressed as "eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge". The mention of fruit is obviously metaphor, but the mention of knowledge is not in the same category. I think we can take Genesis at face value in saying that living by knowledge is a bad thing (in contrast to living by beliefs).

Your questioning whether Adam and Eve were "real" people is interesting because it shows the difficulties faced by people like yourself who judge everything according to an assumed reality. The reality of Adam and Eve is only an issue for people who believe that the fundamentally existent thing is reality.

The capacity to believe may preceed reality, but the specifics of what I believe are definitely tied to things external to myself. To follow your logic would mean that we are making all this up. While under duress of some sort you might be able to brainwash me into conceding that there is no real reality, under the present circumstances, this will not be possible. It is not as though airplanes fly only because we believe they can, for example.

In my philosophical opinion, the presence of the tree of knowledge acknowledges the necessary role of evil in the world as a catalyst for change. While it may have displeased God that Adam and Eve chose to disobey him, and this resulted in their descendents having to endure the impact of that evil instead of being able to live protected lives in the garden, it does not indicate that belief is preferable to knowledge.

What the story of Adam and Eve indicates to me is the moral lesson that we sin by attempting to control things in a God-like way. Unfortunately, it seems to me that much of what you, as well as those scientists who sow seeds of doubt about religion, are advocating indirectly is that humans cultivate skills or modes of thought that would give them God-like influence to be used according to their own judgments.

"... the specifics of what I believe are definitely tied to things external to myself."

Of course they are. That's how you've (unconsciously) set them up to be. (ie, that's the way you unconsciously believe them to be)

".. would mean that we are making all this up."

It's better to phrase that in terms of the world not being different from what it is believed to be. To say "making all this up" suggests we could decide to believe differently and get a different world. We can't do that. It's not possible to believe something by deciding to.

(As Tarski might have said, deciding to believe something results in a decision to believe something. It doesn't result in belief.)

If we believed the world were different, it would be a different world that we believed in. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that the world can be different from what it is believed to be?? If you are suggesting that, I would be interested to learn how you might prove it.

"... brainwash me into conceding that there is no real reality"

Many scientists (eg, Max Tegmark in the latest New Scientist), and probably most philosophers, are quite happy to consider that there might not be any "real reality" at the bottom of the world.

(Max Tegmark thinks that the fundamental reality could be mathematics - or logic, since mathematics is based on logic.)

If non-religious people can do this, I am a little surprised that a religious person like yourself should be so against the idea. Religious people have a back-up reality (namely, God) to look after them in case physical reality turns out to be nothing concrete.

Your philosophical opinion that "the presence of the tree of knowledge acknowledges the necessary role of evil in the world as a catalyst for change" is just that - some worldly philosophy. It's a contrived interpretation of Genesis, and there's no need to go to that trouble. Just accept Genesis' clearly-stated message that living according to "knowledge of good and evil" is not a good thing.

Knowledge is not a bad thing in itself - it's LIVING by knowledge that's a bad thing. That's what Genesis means by "eating" the fruit of the tree. Eating is something you do to fruit, it's not the fruit itself.

The alternative to living by knowledge is living by what you believe (ie, living according to things you can't prove). In religion this manner of living is called faith but in science and philosophy it is better to use the word belief. The connection between knowledge and belief is that knowledge consists of supposedly CORRECT belief, where "correct" means according to how reality is believed to be. (So if you believe something and the "something" happens to be correct, then you have "knowledge" of the something). Living by faith just means we subtract the requirement for belief to be "correct".

It is interesting that Jesus Christ repeatedly warned against putting one's faith in knowledge. His talking in parables was a particular case. The disciples wanted clear-cut statements as to what was right and wrong but Jesus wouldn't tell them. Why? Because it wasn't good for them!

When we look at our fundamentalist cousins, the main way they have gone astray is to become obsessed with defining right and wrong. They want to specify people's behaviour, Biblical interpretation, and so on. Correct living to them means living according to knowledge of good and evil. It would appear to be directly at odds with Genesis.

(I hesitate to be too critical of Christian fundamentalists because the Catholic Church committed similar offences in days past. I am thinking of the definition of venial and mortal sins, statements about how the heavens move, decrees like the assumption, and dogma in general. I'm not saying that the content of these definitions was wrong. I'm saying that it's wrong to live by such definitions. The church should not expect us to do that (and maybe it doesn't?). Fortunately the church no longer sees its role as a definer of truth (if it ever did). I think these days the church expects us to live by faith and not by a rule-book - although occasionally the Pope succumbs to political pressure to define things.)

"... you, as well as those scientists who sow seeds of doubt about religion..."

I am surprised that you should bracket me with those who sow seeds of doubt about religion! I only sow seeds of doubt about the superstition we call physical reality...

Coming from a scientific background, I know that what puts most people off religion is the failure of religious people to let go of their superstitions and have faith in God. Religious people are forever saying religious things (such as "God exists") but it's clear that if they really did believe God existed they wouldn't be saying that. (They would be doing things other than "saying". For instance, they might be unconsciously acting as if God exists.) It's the same with reality. Religious people say God is the ultimate reality but then say that physical reality is the ultimate reality - and then gloss over the illogicality. It all adds up to an image of religion that puts scientific people off - and scientific people are everybody. If religion is to reach "everybody", we've got to put our house in order. That means giving up superstition, illogicality, "inane cooing", and lots of other things that Jesus never did ...

Can faith and knowledge in fact be disentangled from each other? I don't think so. Ignorance is no premise for faith. Every person of faith has reasons even if not the sophistication to verbalize them. And it doesn't take an "educated" person to be a person of faith.

I think it is possible that you have more of an argument with the philosophical underpinnings of science than of just evolution. And certainly those discussions have their place. I personally have always thought our macrocosm could well exist as a microcosm in some one else's larger world. But that is really an exercise in entertaining our own relative insignificance.

What purpose does your questioning serve for you?

Evolution is the foundation of all science because it is assumed to be the origin of man-the-observer. Science needs observation to say what is real.

Evolution is also the weakest point of science, because it relies on randomness. Only evolution requires randomness to be real - the rest of science doesn't.

The problem for science is that randomness cannot be proved to exist ie, it doesn't seem to be real. Increasingly it seems that randomness is science's "God of the gaps" - something you invent when all else fails. If that is the case, then evolution is a house of cards.

The "questioning" doesn't serve any purpose for me as I already know the answer. But a lot of other people - notably creationists - would be greatly comforted if they could learn the remarkable way that science dovetails with religion - with religion coming out on top!

"The 'questioning' doesn't serve any purpose for me as I already know the answer."

I think that means you have inserted a bias.

I also think that pan-rejection of randomness is pseudo-science. Science inherently recognizes randomness or chance because that is what the essence of a hypotheses. You seek to say that the impact of an intervention impacts beyond that which would occur by chance.

I would concede that it would probably take a complete concept analysis to say that randomness=chance but surely they seems certainly to be intersecting ideas.

Yes I shouldn't have said I know the answer. (I do, but I shouldn't have said it.)

Rejection of randomness is based on science's inability to prove it exists. Certainly you can attribute things to "chance" if you like. But scientists (of the Einstein variety, not the Richard Dawkins' variety) don't believe in superstitious things like "chance". (and I am surprised that any Catholic would). If it is our whim as to whether we attribute something to "chance", then the reality that we see depends on us. That is not acceptable.

There are a half-dozen good scientific reasons to reject randomness as a fundamentally existent thing. However, it is perfectly OK to act AS IF it is real, particularly to solve problems in statistics. But acting AS IF it is real shouldn't be taken to imply that it IS real.

Rex
"For the heart of this people is waxed gross" (Acts)

When did you last de-wax your heart?

The attraction of bodies (gravity) is real — what is Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Do you have a reference to substantiate your(?) so-called "the method of evolution" you posit as the premise to your argument contra?

"Reality" is dependent and interactive — the way it is in an evolutionary system. Gravity is a property of reality.

If a rocket is sent straight up into perfectly still air, the people on board will measure a wind from the West. They would think you crazy if you said they were inventing it. Of course the wind is real, they would say. Not only is it being detected by our instruments, it is blowing us off course.

But the wind is not real. In truth, the travellers are inventing it to explain why their instruments are measuring it and why they are being blown off course.

(When the rocket took off from the surface of the earth, it had a tangential velocity from West-to-East caused by the Earth's rotation. After leaving the Earth's surface the rocket retained its ground-based tangential velocity, but that wasn't enough. As the rocket went further from the Earth's axis of rotation it should have whizzed faster to stay above the same point on the ground below. It felt the air giving it a hurry-up - the so-called "Coriolis" force.)

Einstein showed that gravity is like this too. (I won't go into the details.) We are accustomed to treating the force of gravity as real (and it is right that we should) but in truth it is something we invent for practical reasons. I am suggesting that evolution could be like this too. It is something we invent because it's seems a plausible scientific explanation of how we came to exist.

To invent a force of gravity or a force of evolution, the inventor must of course exist beforehand. This is not a problem in the case of gravity, but in the case of evolution a logical problem arises. If evolution is something we invent, it is not possible that evolution can turn around and invent us.

Rex

I am confuse-ed. (not an unfamiliar state). Are you saying that before there wwere people, a rock that rolled off a precipice would float? Is it the reality that is invented or the term. (God said we'd get to name things, but that doesn't mean we created them.)

Frannie, I overlooked your post - sorry. Yes it is reality itself that is "invented", as you put it, not just the names that we give to chunks of reality. But "invented" is not quite the right word - "required to exist" is better. If we accept a thing in our world as real, this implies that a lot of other things that we don't know about must be real too. These other things are required to exist to support the thing in question. It's all part of having a logical world.

For instance, if we accept meringue-utans into our world as real things (perhaps because we see them) then we will need to accept a pre-cursor species that evolved into them, a food source for meringue-utans to eat, and so on. We create these other things - ie, require them to exist - as a kind of "corollary" to accepting the existence of meringue-utans. If meringue-utans are accepted as making a contribution to the logic of our world, then as a corollary lots of other things must also make contributions.

"God said we'd get to name things". That's quite interesting...

Rex

I think you should be saying that if we are not open to making alterations to the theory of evolution, then we need to accept that there is a pre-cursor species to meringue-tans. Perhaps your objection is that some people seem to accept a theory as fact.

Clearly, because of how we make the distinction between what is living and what is merely present (mammals vs. rocks), we can assume that there is at least one food source for a newly discovered life form. However, the theory of evolution does not require us to assume that every life form evolved from something else, it merely suggests that it is likely.

You seem to be going to illogical lengths to make a case against evolution because the case for Creation as depicted in the Bible cannot be substantiated scientifically. In light of that, I would like to present the theory of Santa Claus.

Many children are taught for many years that at Christmas time Santa Claus travels around the globe to drop off presents. Because they wake up on Christmas morning and discover presents and because they believe those telling them this story to be persons of integrity, they believe in Santa Claus. The test of this belief is whether, living alone with doors and windows locked and no fireplace, etc., a person wakes up on Christmas morning to find presents. In theory, they should, but in reality, they don't, and what they believed has been proven to be wrong. However, neither creation nor evolution can be proven or disproven conclusively, because not everything is known and there is no test situation. However, there is enough evidence to produce reasonable doubt in both cases to the extent that neither completely negates the other. In terms of religion, dying will be the equivalent of waking up on Christmas morning, and nothing before then will put the question to rest.