Uncommon Dissent

Friday, November 18, 2005

Are All Coynes Made of Dross? — First Jerry and Now George! (0 comments)

Recent comments by Catholic representatives have the IDers all up in arms, even going so far as to cry "Omega Point Conspiracy!" Read on (click the timestamp) to discover a mixture of religious paranoia and "but it's science!" hand-waving.

And next, they’ll say that abortion isn’t really so bad. What is happening to the Catholic Church?

Comment by wheadgib — November 18, 2005 @ 10:31 pm

the catholic church is doing a lot of damage with absurd anti-biblical statements such as this (and then claiming that theyre on the side of the bible!): ...

the bible says exactly the opposite of what coyne claims here. im rather confused as to how on earth the catholic church itself continues to even call itselt christian when it throws out the very idea of a designer God! has coyne not read Genesis? of course the bible makes it quite clear that God is, indeed, a designer God and a creator God. not a God of trial and error.

Comment by jboze3131 — November 18, 2005 @ 11:03 pm

I wouldn’t confuse the Rev. George Coyne’s opinion with official Church teaching. When he give his opinion—that’s what it remains: his opinion. When Cardinal Schoenborn speaks, that is much more authoritative (even though he might not have the same level of scientific training).

Comment by PaV — November 18, 2005 @ 11:05 pm

Even worse, in my mind, is the fact that it DOES all boil down to the Pope’s position. Sorry, but I don’t care what the pope (a position not established in the Bible) says, I care about what the word says. And I don’t understand why most Catholics, it seems, think that what the Pope (and the lower hierarchy) says IS more important than what the Bible says. Sadly, the Catholic Church seems to put too much importance in what a man says as opposed to the Word.

Top Vatican scientists saying these sorts of things…it cannot be helping the overall Christian church in general. Doing, it seems, all you can to destroy the word of God to prop up a hierarchy that is anything but biblical seems to be the worst of ideas in this matter.

Comment by jboze3131 — November 18, 2005 @ 11:31 pm

Well since I didn’t know anything about Coyne until just know I did a little googlin and guess what I found:

“A Symposium sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation

Chaired by
Martin J. Rees
Council Chamber
Pontifical Academy of Sciences
The Vatican
Rome, Italy
(7, 8, and 9 November 2000)

The meeting is supported in full by the John Templeton Foundation. The organizers are: John Barrow, George V. Coyne, George Ellis, Michael Heller, Martin J. Rees.

A provisional agenda in four headings:

1. Physics of the universe: scenarios for the long-range future:

(A) Towards asymptopia: evolution of cosmic structure, death of stars, decay of atoms, formation and evaporation of black holes, behaviour near cosmological singularities, etc. What would an eternal cosmos be like at each era between the present and the final ‘omega point’? ”

Interesting. What we have is a convergence of Teilhard De Chardin’s Omega Point philosophy (evolution of the universe to a universal apotheosis), Coyne, and Templeton. What do they all have in common? Teilhard De Chardin was a palentologist who spent his life trying to prove evolution and searching for the “missing link” between ape and man. He was infamously involved with two famous missing link frauds (piltdown man and peking man). Templeton attacks ID and supports evolution, Oyne, ands De Chardin. Coyne attacks ID and supports evolution and also has put forth in his writings and speeches the idea of the “evolving universe”, essentially the same thing as Teilhard De Chardin. He also edited a publication by the Vatican Observatory called ‘Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding’ with an article by Tipler called “The Omega Point Theory: A Model of an Evolving God”. (Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger, S.J., and George V. Coyne, S.J. (eds.),. Vatican City, Vatican Observator)

They all seem to believe in and want to promote the idea presented in the Omega Point philosophy. And at the same time they want to attack people who oppose their views i.e ID, by attack I mean spend lots of money to try and convince the public that ID is wrong.

So the big question is…why?

Why do they feel it is important to fight in the court of public opinion that the omega point doctrine is true and God is not directly controlling the universe and everything in it? What I wonder is why they feel it is important to actually put energy into trying to discredit ID.

Here’s a thought. They have a kind of vision of God where God is a kind of collective unconsciousness who is not an omniscient omnipresent entity. From Coyne:

“But, if we confront what we know of our origins scientifically with religious faith in God the Creator – if, that is, we take the results of modern science seriously – it is difficult to believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient in the sense of many of the scholastic philosophers. For the believer, science tells us of a God who must be very different from God as seen by them.”

“God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity. God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution.”

God in their vision is some kind of impersonal force of nature or impersonal supernatural force which “loves” in some abstract fashion, like how “the womb loves the child”.

Essentially they want to remove the conception of morality based on fear. In other words most religions teach that God will punish you if you “sin” in some way. God is not only the provider of life but also the Law. If you take God out as an active participant on Earth and our lives then you remove the fear of sinning. If God isn’t aware and just some kind of Force then that means you shouldn’t be afraid of sinning. You can be immoral and God is impotent to punish you. This is the kind of philosophy which is greatly admired by tyrants who need a religious ideology to suit their own purposes.

If God doesn’t punish because he doesn’t involve himself directly with us, but is just some kind of loving force, and if evolution is actually the plan of that loving force, then if we aid evolution…we do good.

Hmmm…How do we aid evolution? I know!! Let’s support eugenics, genocide, slavery, exploitation of inferior races, malthusian concepts of aiding the destruction of the less evolved people. Bingo!!! Ya see it’s alright that the white rich guy in his castle in Europe exploits third world countries by empowering dictators. It’s alright if a genocide in Rwanda or Congo or Sudan or West Africa takes place. In fact it’s a good thing and we should help them. It aids evolution in ridding the world of less evolved people. The first humans according to evolution were black people. Therefore they are the least evolved and the least wanted. We should do everything possible to aid “God” in evolving humanity to the “omega point” the apotheosis of evolution. Where we all become Godlike. Don’t worry about “love your brother” or “the meek shall inherit the earth”. God can’t see you, God’s just an impersonal force of love. You can do what you like. God won’t punish you.

These people are not Christians. They are fakes using Christianity for their own agenda. Their philosophy was quite popular from the 17th to the 19th century. The whole “occult revival” period of the late 19th century was greatly influenced by the the same kind of thinking. It’s essentially Rosicrucian dogma. Modernized.

Comment by mentok — November 19, 2005 @ 1:49 am

I’m shocked as to why so many people, such as Coyne, can’t grasp ID. I think the reason why it’s instantaneously down played is because first hand critics automatically conflate it with creationism. When they do that, they pass that around to others. Most second hand critics would say that it’s just philosophy since there’s no science behind it. This assessment couldn’t be farther from the truth. Read ‘Darwin’s Black Box’, ‘The Design Inference’, and ‘No Free Lunch’. I think once critics read this, then, their whole concept will change. If not, then they’re just a bunch of lazy dogmatists.

Comment by Benjii — November 19, 2005 @ 8:50 am
Let them eat their own.

Filed under: The Know-Nothing Party


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home