Audio:Can a Christian be a Darwinist? Karl Giberson vs John West

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

buffalo

Guest
Can a Christian be a Darwinist?
On February 5, 2009, theistic evolution proponent Karl Giberson and intelligent design proponent John West debated whether a Christian can be a Darwinist [before a packed auditorium](http://www.biola.edu/news/articles/2009/090223_darwinist.cfm) at [Biola University](http://www.biola.edu/) in Los Angeles. The session was sponsored by the Master of Arts in Science and Religion program at Biola. Below you can listen to the audio of this debate, courtesy of Biola University.
 
2 hours … did you listen to it all? I will give it some time because I like John West. I think he’s a Catholic also.
 
It was actually an enjoyable debate… well, about half of it anyway.

Giberson is a pleasant speaker, and presented a nice overview of some of the evidence for common descent.

I should be well-accustomed to the intellectual dishonesty of creationists, but for some reason it continually surprises me. West laid out at least one old canard–that Darwin was gasp a eugenicist!–and one new one, making the rounds since New Scientist published a somewhat misleading article on horizontal gene transfer earlier this year, that reputable biologists are radically rewriting cladistic trees. Oh, well.
 
The topic of the debate was whether or not Darwinism is compatible with the Christian faith.

John West did a very fine job in exposing the theological errors inherent in the Christian-Darwinist view.
 
Giberson seemed to be reasonable at the beginning. He’s very very very smooth, and has what I think is called a velvet voice, almost hypnotic (just like Prez O). It makes my ears tickle. He started out the second phase as a pit bull, and his real colors emerged.

One questioner at the end asked him how he can believe in the resurrection but not believe in a literal Adam / Eve. He did a lot of hemming and hawing for someone who (also) professes to be a practicing Christian.
 
hatsoff said:
It was actually an enjoyable debate… well, about half of it anyway.

Giberson is a pleasant speaker, and presented a nice overview of some of the evidence for common descent.

I should be well-accustomed to the intellectual dishonesty of creationists, but for some reason it continually surprises me. West laid out at least one old canard–that Darwin was gasp a eugenicist!–and one new one, making the rounds since New Scientist published a somewhat misleading article on horizontal gene transfer earlier this year, that reputable biologists are radically rewriting cladistic trees. Oh, well.
Click to expand...
Hatsoff,
For those of us who aren’t biologists, what do the terms “horizontal gene transfer” and “cladistic trees” mean? In regard to these terms, what are the implications for our faith? Are you personally a believer in theistic evolution? Are you a Catholic? What do you think the Church teaches in this area? Do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve (that there was a single human couple from which all humans descended) or polygenism? Is there scientific evidence for a genetic “Eve” (mitochondrial DNA analysis, etc)?

I have more sincere questions…
Can anyone define the terms as they were used in the debate? What exactly does it mean to be a Darwinist? Is the term synonymous with “evolutionist” or does it mean something more? Does true philosophical Darwinism necessarily entail belief in atheistic evolution? Dinesh D’Souza’s book, What’s So Great About Christianity? seems to suggest that it does, and I think he distinguishes between belief in evolution and true “Darwinism.” Darwin himself seems to have lost his faith by the end of his life. Did he believe his own theories explained everything, including the origins of life? Is there evidence he was a eugenicist? What is the difference between belief in intelligent design and theistic evolution? Can’t one believe in an intelligent designer who worked through evolution, or is “intelligent design” considered by philosophers and scientists to be a coded phrase for creationism? Didn’t St. Thomas have a proof for God’s existence that involved intelligibility, or at least teleology? Isn’t this the same as belief in intelligent design? And isn’t this compatible with belief in evolution properly understood (theistic evolution)?

Thanks,
David
 
Intelligent Design advocates make an observation of a complex sequence and attribute it to a designer. For example, they look at the code within DNA and ask, “How can an information exchange processes occur in a natural environment?” Computer communication systems use “start” and “stop” codes to separate messages. So does DNA. There must be an intelligence behind all this!

Theistic evolution requires an assumption that a long series of small changes occurred over a great period of time producing one new species after another. An important event that refutes this is the pre-Cambrian explosion, i.e., the sudden appearance of fully formed fossils. This would indicate a sudden creation, not a long, slow evolution.

Also, the so-called “Missing Link” has multiplied into the tens of thousands. There is no fossil evidence of any one species evolving into another. All species appear fully formed. The fact is, mutation never selects anything worthwhile. Breeders recognize that there are fixed limits to the amount of change that can be produced. After decades of modifying fruit fly embryos there are only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly or a dead fruit fly. Mutation driven evolution does not seem possible.
 
I am under the assumption that these debates are fueled by those antagonists on ‘both sides’ who wish to separate faith and reason. Sad, really, that this would occur. It is my historical understanding that the Catholic Church gave us our first hospitals, schools, science courses, and were the beginning of advancing our ability to think and reason. To rigidly adhere to the why (Gods creation) and ignore our best description of how (evolution) is hardly going against anything. When I get into these discussions, I feel like Im arguing the Jewish prose of Genesis.
Lets be clear that Intelligent Design is a modernized version of Creationism. Makes sense that something like this would ‘evolve’ from the original creation story to meet our modern and changing beliefs. I personally, think its a cute idea and have no problem with people believing it rather than the Creation story as originally described in the Bible. But make no mistake, theres no scienceto back it up and from what Ive read, no proof. What is stated as proof is incredibly wishy-washy and subjective. Its a house of cards compared to evolution. It still functions on faith and accepting the belief. Thats OK and I have no problems with the Creation story as an explanation based on belief. But lets be clear, you cant both literally interpret the Creation story and also accept the precepts of the design belief.
Picking apart theories isnt hard, but if it meant they all werent factual by that alone, then gravity and anti-matter, which still have some gaps, shouldnt be factual either. I think its a question of people not understanding the difference between fact and truth or not understanding the scientific method. I am no theologian, but then again, neither was the author of the original design story - the ‘Darwin’ of design, if you will.
And for the record, I cant prove design in my lab, noone can. But I have used the ‘theory’ of evolution on multiple occassions. It works - its real.
 
First, let’s discard gravity and the new addition, antimatter. I can test gravity all day. I can drop items and they will fall to the ground 100% of the time. No such test exists for old dead things evolution.
Anitmatter. Scientists can isolate individual atoms in magnetic fields. They can detect antimatter. They understand how matter and antimatter interact. Large atoms have been imaged.

No, a Catholic cannot be a Darwinist.
No, a Catholic is not allowed to believe that Adam and Eve were not our first parents, or part of a group of first parents. See the encyclical Humani Generis.
No, Catholics are not allowed to believe that a mindless engine called evolution accidentally came up with human beings. See the document, Communion and Stewardship.
The biology textbook is an incomplete source of information about human origins. Science alone cannot explain the ontological leap to human beings.
God was a direct causal agent in any form of evolution that may have occurred. Without His infallible guidance, evolution is not possible.

Intelligent design draws from existing real world examples just as “evolutionary science” does. Objects designed by humans have specified complexity. A lawn mower has wheels and an engine but none of its parts are suitable for a car that has wheels and an engine.

Currently, scientists are spending time and money in the SETI project looking for signs of intelligent life. With zero evidence or data to work with, they are looking for signals that are specified, complex and ordered so as to distinguish from random noise produced by other radio sources in space

An archaeologist does the same thing. He picks up a triangular rock. He examines it for specific complex features. If it fails the examination it is just a triangular rock. But if it is almost perfectly symmetrical, has regular chip marks along two opposite edges and perhaps a small hole in the base large enough for an arrow shaft, he can be confident that he has found an arrowhead even if he cannot find the designer.

Opponents of Intelligent Design do not use facts but the false idea that it will be used to get God, or at least a Creator, back into public schools, which will result in lawsuits by people who must stop the return of God to the public school setting at all costs. Atheistic evolution is permitted precisely because God is explicitly excluded.

Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution.

The why and how argument is meaningless. It always was. Random mutation and natural selection created your brain. Religion was a survival mechanism given to us by our genes until we became smart enough to invent computer games. Now we’re so smart we can put signs on buses that read: Man Created God. The Church, by the way, does not believe this.

Peace,
Ed
 
Thorsson said:
I am under the assumption that these debates are fueled by those antagonists on ‘both sides’ who wish to separate faith and reason. Sad, really, that this would occur. It is my historical understanding that the Catholic Church gave us our first hospitals, schools, science courses, and were the beginning of advancing our ability to think and reason. To rigidly adhere to the why (Gods creation) and ignore our best description of how (evolution) is hardly going against anything. When I get into these discussions, I feel like Im arguing the Jewish prose of Genesis.
Lets be clear that Intelligent Design is a modernized version of Creationism. Makes sense that something like this would ‘evolve’ from the original creation story to meet our modern and changing beliefs. I personally, think its a cute idea and have no problem with people believing it rather than the Creation story as originally described in the Bible. But make no mistake, theres no scienceto back it up and from what Ive read, no proof. What is stated as proof is incredibly wishy-washy and subjective. Its a house of cards compared to evolution. It still functions on faith and accepting the belief. Thats OK and I have no problems with the Creation story as an explanation based on belief. But lets be clear, you cant both literally interpret the Creation story and also accept the precepts of the design belief.
Picking apart theories isnt hard, but if it meant they all werent factual by that alone, then gravity and anti-matter, which still have some gaps, shouldnt be factual either. I think its a question of people not understanding the difference between fact and truth or not understanding the scientific method. I am no theologian, but then again, neither was the author of the original design story - the ‘Darwin’ of design, if you will.
And for the record, I cant prove design in my lab, noone can. But I have used the ‘theory’ of evolution on multiple occassions. It works - its real.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the theory of evolution is useful for any practical purpose. It is a pillar of the anti-theist belief system though.

I invite you to read this article written by a scientist for a scientific journal:

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-do-we-invoke-darwin/

Peace,
Ed
 
I think that the use of the term “Darwinist” is a way to add confusion to this issue. If it means “evolution” of species, then I want to address it.
I have a science background and am a devoted Catholic. Once I understood that God cannot be circumscribed, I understood that there is no conflict between faith and evolution.
Don’t we believe in “God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth?”
Since our Creator is All-Powerful, Omniscient, Omnipresent, why would anyone try to decide how much God had to do with evolution. My belief and faith tell me that when God started the Universe, He KNEW exactly every step that would take place, every moment thereafter. It is only our misunderstanding that limits us. God is not limited by ANYTHING.
Believing in this, there are no “accidental” mutations, there are no “accidental” bottlenecks in human evolution, there are no “accidents” at all, because God KNEW everything that would happen since He set it all in motion.
 
Thorsson said:
  1. But make no mistake, theres no scienceto back it up and from what Ive read, no proof. What is stated as proof is incredibly wishy-washy and subjective. Its a house of cards compared to evolution.
snip…
  1. I think its a question of people not understanding the difference between fact and truth or not understanding the scientific method.
snip…
  1. And for the record, I cant prove design in my lab, noone can. But I have used the ‘theory’ of evolution on multiple occassions. It works - its real.
Click to expand...
Thorsson - welcome to the forums. I’ve numbered some of your points above.
  1. Daily life presents us with innumerable examples of things that we all can agree are designed. Cars, for example. We are 100% sure that they are designed - there are serial numbers that we can track back for all the components, and a paper (or computerized) design on file at GM, Toyota, etc.
We KNOW for a fact that designed things, as we see them in their final form, can exist.

By comparison, there is NOTHING in it’s final (as in current) form that can be pointed to with certainty that evolution did it. The usual response is that “evolution did it, somehow”, or that “since it’s here in front of us, that proves that evolution did it.”

The evolution side is the house of cards, not design.
  1. There are many scientists and engineers who understand the scientific method quite well, and lean towards “it was designed” as an explanation, thank you.
  2. I’m guessing that you are a “pure scientist” and not say, and engineer. I’m an engineer, and I assure you sir, that designs most certainly need to be proven before time and effort is expended on building an actual product. And then as the absolutely final proof, e.g. the bridge either holds up the load or it collapses. The design has most certainly been verified as correct, or not.
So you’ve used the theory of evolution in your work, and you know it works. The theory of evolution says that every living thing, no matter how complex, was created through a process of random mutations, which are then filtered by natural selection. If your work has proven that e.g. man has come about from some single cell form of life, please share that with us.
 
edwest2 said:
No, a Catholic cannot be a Darwinist. No, a Catholic is not allowed to believe that Adam and Eve were not our first parents, or part of a group of first parents. See the encyclical Humani Generis. No, Catholics are not allowed to believe that a mindless engine called evolution accidentally came up with human beings. See the document, Communion and Stewardship. The biology textbook is an incomplete source of information about human origins. Science alone cannot explain the ontological leap to human beings. God was a direct causal agent in any form of evolution that may have occurred. Without His infallible guidance, evolution is not possible…Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution.
Click to expand...
I am a Roman Catholic and also a Ph.D. biologist. There is no conflict between Darwinian evolution and Christian faith. Pope John Paul II spoke to this issue – Catholics ARE allowed to believe in evolution. You don’t have to exclude God from creation in order to believe in genetic mutation, natural selection, and survival of the fittest.
 
NO! Darwin was a Atheist and said with no proof about evolution that we come from monkeys. You can not be part of this; because you would reject all the truths of God. These men do not believe in God and don’t believe God is real. So No.
 
Andrew_Baalman said:
NO! Darwin was a Atheist and said with no proof about evolution that we come from monkeys. You can not be part of this; because you would reject all the truths of God. These men do not believe in God and don’t believe God is real. So No.
Click to expand...
Actually… he was likely not entirely atheist. One thing is for certain of couse - he doubted the religious teachings of the time. He did say we likely evolved from the same ancestor as the current apes of the time - but more importantly he said that natural selection (his theory of how evolution works) applied to humans as well.

What do you mean he can’t be part of this? Believing what a guy in a tall hat say? Wake me when God himself comes and tells you that evolution is a lie. Until them, I’ll believe what seems bloody obvious and not listen to mortals that appear to have reject the brain they believe God gave them.

In short - evolution is fact. You can see it in Dog breeds. Natural selection is very very very likely one of the major factors in evolution. Humans very very very likely did evolve from an ancestor that is in common with current day apes. And just like the sky is blue, you saying otherwise does not change the evidence for these things.

Beyond that, I’ve never understood the militant rejection of evolution by some peopl.e You refuse to accept scientific evidence, but then put all your trust in a 2000 year old badly translated book written by people that didn’t even witness the events they discuss?? I realize it has some insights, but come on people.
 
adowcday said:
I am a Roman Catholic and also a Ph.D. biologist. There is no conflict between Darwinian evolution and Christian faith. Pope John Paul II spoke to this issue – Catholics ARE allowed to believe in evolution. You don’t have to exclude God from creation in order to believe in genetic mutation, natural selection, and survival of the fittest.
Click to expand...
Quote directly from the US Catholic Catechism for Adults - page 60 (2007):
Code: 
 quote:
                "Christian faith does not require the acceptance of any particular theory of evolution, nor does it forbid it, provided that the particular theory is not strictly materialistic and does not deny what is essential to the spiritual essence of the human person, namely that God creates each human soul directly to share immortal life with him."    end quote.
This quite clearly states that:
  1. Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution.
  2. Catholics are forbidden to accept theories of evolution which are strictly materialistic, etc. (as described above).
  3. Catholics may accept forms of evolution which are not forbidden, as above.
Unfortunately, most biologists are atheistic materialists and they preach Darwinism (“random mutations” + natural selection) as their substitute for God.

And even some Catholic clergy have fallen into the trap - Fr. Coyne (formerly) of the Vatican Observatory.

Here’s what Cardinal Schoenborn says about Coyne in “Chance or Purpose”:

“It is not only unnecessary, however, but contrary to reason , to view this grandiose path of life up to man as being an exclusively random process. When an astronomer, who is also a priest and theologian, even has the presumption to say that God himself could not know for certain that man would be the product of evolution, then nonsense has taken over completely.” The footnote associated with this paragraph reads “For example, Fr. George V. Coyne, S.J. in Der Spiegel…”

Is he still Catholic or not? It’s not obvious to me that he is.

We must be cautious not to accidentally eliminate God from his works of creation.
 
To adowcday -

You are incorrect. Cardinal Schoenborn, lead editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, outlines most of the difficulties here:

nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html

There are numerous conflicts. Among them, polygenism which Catholics cannot accept. See the encyclical Humani Generis (1950).

And what do we, as Catholics, tell people when they ask: “What is Original Sin? Why did Jesus have to die?” Check your Bible. Through one man sin entered the world. One man. Not a group of men. Not a hominid that became a man. One man.

Jesus tells us Moses wrote concerning Him.

We are required to believe that the first woman, Eve, was formed from Adam’s side. Do not confuse the work of men with the work of God. Those things given by God to man as divine revelation are held in the deposit of faith.

Do not succumb to the anxious and desperate words of the New Atheists who want all to believe: Man Created God.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
To adowcday -

You are incorrect. Cardinal Schoenborn, lead editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, outlines most of the difficulties here:

nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html

There are numerous conflicts. Among them, polygenism which Catholics cannot accept. See the encyclical Humani Generis (1950).

And what do we, as Catholics, tell people when they ask: “What is Original Sin? Why did Jesus have to die?” Check your Bible. Through one man sin entered the world. One man. Not a group of men. Not a hominid that became a man. One man.

Jesus tells us Moses wrote concerning Him.

We are required to believe that the first woman, Eve, was formed from Adam’s side. Do not confuse the work of men with the work of God. Those things given by God to man as divine revelation are held in the deposit of faith.

Do not succumb to the anxious and desperate words of the New Atheists who want all to believe: Man Created God.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Ed, with all due respect, Cardinal Schonborn’s article was highly controversial within the Vatican and does not reflect the official teaching of the Church. I am a faithful Roman Catholic and a biologist. I’m not an atheist, new or otherwise. Evolution is a rock-solid part of biological science, fully supported by the factual record.

You know, if we rejected ideas just because they were proposed or taught by atheists or adherents to other religions, we would have to reject much of philosophy, science and engineering, literature, the fine arts, etc. Heck, without Aristotle, we wouldn’t have Scholastic theology, would we? Fortunately, the Catholic faith as taught by the Fathers and as is taught today accepts what is good from whatever source.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top