Does Science Point to God? Part II: The Christian Critics

Crisis Magazine ^ | Benjamin D. Wiker

[Right Wing Professor]

Since the mechanism of natural selection was designed by Darwin to eliminate the need for a designer, to retain a deity seems to be entirely superfluous. Why keep a redundant cause on the cosmic payroll?

This must be a Vatican II innovation. Back when I was Catholic, I don't recall it being preached that the sole purpose of God is to be explanation of biological diversity.

Makes the ol' death-on-the-cross seem superfluous.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I thought Darwin observed natural selection rather than designed it.

[Right Wing Professor]

I thought Darwin observed natural selection rather than designed it.

You can't observe evolution, silly. It's a faith, not a theory.

[Dimensio]

I suspect that a practical application of the moral principles inherent in the idea of "survival of the fittest" may have played a significant role in his disappearance.

"Survival of the fittest" is not a moral principle, it's a consequence of reality.

This common misunderstanding results in two things: stupid people who use evolution to commit evil acts, and stupid people who assert that acceptance of evolution leads to committing evil acts.

[Dimensio]

Where does he discuss biology?

That's actually part of the problem. He makes assertions regarding people who accept perfectly reasonable claims made by biolgoists, but does not actually discuss the claims in order to support his assertions regarding those who accept the claims, nor does he attempt to discredit the claims beyond saying that they're scientifically untenable without actually explaining why.

[balrog666]

Wow! I'm just speechless! Maybe this says it for me:

[PatrickHenry]

I'll put you down as "undecided."

[Right Wing Professor]

General critique; this is really, really weak logic concealed under a facade of erudition. The proposition that Darwinism has moral concequences isn't argued, it's asserted. As an atheist, who does not accept Catholicism's moral premises, I deny nonetheless that we can derive any ethical or moral precepts from Darwinism. The fact that people have done so in the past is irrelevant.

The argument that Epicurus is the founder of evolutionary theory is asinine beyond belief. Evolutionary theory is a theory of biology, not a system of philosophy.

The argument that the only reason to treat humans different from animals is because of his particular theological beliefs is just another unargued assertion. Kant, for example argued that humans are different from animals in that humans and not animals create moral laws and act on them. Whatever one thinks of Kant - and I personally think Kant could have given the author of these piece 50 IQ points and still reduced him to a quivering blob in 5 minutes - this argument of Kant's itself refutes the author's contention that there can be no reason to treat humans differently from animals if there is no God. Sure there are.

He claims that Every method in science begins and ends with a metaphysic. Nonsense. Science is an eminently empirical exercise; most of us despise metaphysics.

One more instance of the intellectual demise of the American Catholic Church, I'm afraid.

[Right Wing Professor]

Maybe this says it for me

Is that...object...designed, or natural?

[Right Wing Professor]

I suspect that a practical application of the moral principles inherent in the idea of "survival of the fittest" may have played a significant role in his disappearance.

So what about BTK? Were his actions a consequence of his Lutheranism?

[Ichneumon]

Quite a few modern pharmaceuticals have been developed via directed evolution. The drug companies harness the innovative power of evolution in order to find drug configurations which bind better to certain biochemical receptors, or more effectively block key enzymes in the life cycle of harmful bacteria or cancers, etc.

[jennyp]

God becomes a pantheistic engineer who sets the machine up and wanders away, disinterested in what's going on. I don't see any way to avoid some variety of that type of theology.

Why do you think such a god would be disinterested in what's going on? Why wouldn't He be intensely interested in how our story is playing out? Why wouldn't He be wondering to Himself, "So did I set a heroic story in motion, or a comedy, or a tragedy, or a tragicomedy? Myself, the suspense is killing me! (as my cute little Earthlings would say)"

[Ichneumon]

I deny nonetheless that we can derive any ethical or moral precepts from Darwinism. The fact that people have done so in the past is irrelevant.

Even science in general says nothing about ethics or morality. Science is about learning *how* things work in a natural state when not deliberately interfered with.

That says absolutely nothing about how things "ought" to be, which is the province of ethics.

[StJacques]

"Quite a few modern pharmaceuticals have been developed via directed evolution. The drug companies harness the innovative power of evolution in order to find drug configurations which bind better to certain biochemical receptors, or more effectively block key enzymes in the life cycle of harmful bacteria or cancers, etc."

Your point is noted Ichneumon. I was trying to think of some examples to illustrate pharmaceuticals -- besides flu vaccines -- but I couldn't come up with any off the top of my head.

[P-Marlowe]

Nope.

[StJacques]

This is a followup to your post on pharmaceuticals.

I did a quick web search with Google and found the following article:

http://www.freshnews.com/news/biotech-biomedical/article_15277.html?Applied+Molecular+Evolution

And I quote:

". . . Directed molecular evolution is a process for optimizing genes and proteins for specific commercial purposes. Since its inception, AME's principal focus has been on applying its proprietary AMEsystem(TM) technology platform to human biotherapeutics, the largest market for directed molecular evolution. Biotherapeutics, or biopharmaceuticals, are protein pharmaceuticals such as antibodies, cytokines, hormones and enzymes. AME uses its proprietary technology to develop improved versions of currently marketed, FDA-approved biopharmaceuticals as well as novel human biotherapeutics. . . ."

Thanks for the tip.

[PatrickHenry]

I was trying to think of some examples to illustrate pharmaceuticals -- besides flu vaccines -- but I couldn't come up with any off the top of my head.

Haven't bacteria been developed that eliminate toxins and petroleum spills from the ground? I recall reading about that sort of thing.

[xzins]

vatican II....

I'm not sure if you're stating that God had no involvement in the origin of life. Did he, in your opinion?

[xzins]

So, then, what specifically do you see that this God you're talking about has done?

[Right Wing Professor]

I'm not sure if you're stating that God had no involvement in the origin of life. Did he, in your opinion?

I don't feel it necessary to postulate a deity in the first place.

My point is that orthodox Catholicism does not hold that the only reason to believe in a God is to explain the origin of species. The author's contention, therefore, that evoilution makes God unnecessary is therefore not orthodox.