Biological origin of human values

[itinerant1]

The Catholic Church declares that there is actual design in nature.

General Audience, April 1985, Pope John Paul II:

“To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be the equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, it would be admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems.”
Peace,
Ed

You ID guys are not sensitive to the elementary rules of logic. How many times do I have to point out that the fact that there is design in nature is not and argument in support of ID. Of course, if there were no design in nature, ID would be false as a theory. However, it is also obvious that if there was no design in nature science would not even be possible. But from the fact of design it does not follow that ID theory provides a correct explanation of that design, which you fallaciously imply to the contrary by quoting Pope Paul II. This is the problem that you continually avoid to address. It’s a matter of simple logic, one that since you cannot and will not address, constitutes additional evidence for the utter abject intellectual poverty of ID theory. The Church is not served by the errors of ID ideology. Darwinian ideological errors cannot be refuted by the ID ideological errors.

 

[reggieM]

How many times do I have to point out that the fact that there is design in nature is not and argument in support of ID.

It might be better if you tried to prove it rather than merely assert it.

But from the fact of design it does not follow that ID theory provides a correct explanation of that design,

What is your explanation of design? How do you observe, evaluate and distinguish it from non-designed things?

a matter of simple logic, one that since you cannot and will not address, constitutes additional evidence for the utter abject intellectual poverty of ID theory.

Again, it’s very simple. You claim that you can observe design in nature and that it is a “fact” that it exists. What is your proof of that fact? What things in nature do you consider to be non-designed? What is your evidence for that?

The Church is not served by the errors of ID ideology.

Up to this point you appear to be merely providing some slogans that you picked up from an anti-ID website somewhere. Again, please provide some support for your assertions that you observe design in nature and that it exists as a fact.

Darwinian ideological errors cannot be refuted by the ID ideological errors.

What Darwinian ideological errors are you referring to?

 

[itinerant1]

Apparently you have a grasp on the true “mind of the Church” but the two archbishops and Cardinal I quoted from don’t. Interesting – how did you arrive at that level of certainty? Perhaps some kind of divine power you’ve received? Clearly, you might want to tell Archbishop Wuerl that he is not in line with your opinions here.

ID theory is not in line with the majority thinking in the Church with those who are competent in this matter. There are always differences of opinion, such as whether war on Iraq was a just war. Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger along with a majority of the world’s bishops concluded that it was an unjust war according to the traditional doctrine of “just war.” Nevertheless, certain Bishops in America eventually dissented or “softened their views”. But regardless of the failings of certain American bishops, the war was in fact aggressive, and unjust. I don’t mean to debate the justness of the Iraq war, but only to illustrate, that some bishops and cardinals, especially in America, are out of step with the Vatican. Hence, your argument proves nothing whatsoever in regard to the Church and ID theory.

 

[reggieM]

The Catholic Church declares that there is actual design in nature.

General Audience, April 1985, Pope John Paul II:

“To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be the equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, it would be admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems.”

Exactly right. We notice the Pope making a distinction between the “complex organization” of the universe versus the idea of “chance”.

 

[reggieM]

There are always differences of opinion, such as whether war on Iraq was a just war.

You’ve gave the impression that such “differences of opinion” with ID were condemned by the so-called “mind of the Church”.

Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger along with a majority of the world’s bishops concluded that it was an unjust war according to the traditional doctrine of “just war.”

It might surprise you but that judgement had no binding doctrinal power. It was not given with full papal authority or protected by the infallibility of the Church (only protected against heresy).

I don’t mean to debate the justness of the Iraq war, but only to illustrate, that some bishops and cardinals, especially in America, are out of step with the Vatican. Hence, your argument proves nothing whatsoever in regard to the Church and ID theory.

I thnk my argument does quite a lot to show that you do not have the authority to claim that you know “the mind of the Church” – because you don’t. ID theory has not been officially condemned by the Holy See and to claim that it has is false teaching. To go on and claim that Cardinal George Pell, a close advisor to Pope Benedict, is “dissenting” against the teaching of the Church indicates that your opinions are extreme and not well-considered.

 

[itinerant1]

Up to this point you appear to be merely providing some slogans that you picked up from an anti-ID website somewhere. Again, please provide some support for your assertions that you observe design in nature and that it exists as a fact.
What Darwinian ideological errors are you referring to?

This is where you demonstrate your utter distantiation from what is going on here. I do not know if I have ever been to an anti-ID or even and anti-Darwinian web site. I have very little time for the web. I have already posted what is wrong with the ID explanation of design. You are not actually taking the time to understand what you read, which has been my contention all along. You can try re-reading the ZENIT article I linked to. The priest already sufficiently answered your objection but it did not register with you. I have already listed some of the Darwinian ideological errors in a previous post on this thread. But that has escaped your understanding, also. There is no worthwhile point in you trying to run this discussion in circles to no end just because you do not understand and reflect upon what you read. You make it clear that I am wasting my time trying to discuss anything with ID advocates who cannot think critically and logically.

 

[liquidpele]

This is where you demonstrate your utter distantiation from what is going on here. I do not know if I have ever been to an anti-ID or even and anti-Darwinian web site. I have very little time for the web. I have already posted what is wrong with the ID explanation of design. You are not actually taking the time to understand what you read, which has been my contention all along. You can try re-reading the ZENIT article I linked to. The priest already sufficiently answered your objection but it did not register with you. I have already listed some of the Darwinian ideological errors in a previous post on this thread. But that has escaped your understanding, also. There is no worthwhile point in you trying to run this discussion in circles to no end just because you do not understand and reflect upon what you read. You make it clear that I am wasting my time trying to discuss anything with ID advocates who cannot think critically and logically.

Amen!

 

[liquidpele]

Also, reggie, are you going to reply to my request for the evidence that you mentioned?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5742743&postcount=62

 

[reggieM]

There is no worthwhile point in you trying to run this discussion in circles to no end just because you do not understand and reflect upon what you read. You make it clear that I am wasting my time trying to discuss anything with ID advocates who cannot think critically and logically.

Well, I enjoyed the discussion thus far even though I disgree with your views.
Best regards and I wish you well.

 

[reggieM]

Also, reggie, are you going to reply to my request for the evidence that you mentioned?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5742743&postcount=62

Sure. To get you started, try this.

Go to a search engine. Perhaps, like Google.

Then, type this in the box “finding challenges evolutionary theory”. That will return 853,000 results. Then, you can start reading them. When you get finished, you can come back here and ask questions. Or better yet, you can find some scientists and discuss matters with them.

Along with that, you could read several hundred posts on uncommondescent.com and the thousands of replies that follow them, as I already recommended. You might even ask them your questions since it is a blog dedicated to ID theory.

I notice that you just applauded itinerant1 who claimed that it was a waste of time “to discuss anything with ID advocates who cannot think critically and logically”.

Can you explain why I should be interested in providing you more data? I noticed your response to Ed West’s list of textbook references – a snide and insincere dismissal.

 

[peacefulwarrior]

Mutation, is not evolution… huh where did you get that idea???
Evolution is change, if a mutation causes a some sort of negative effect to the creature, chances are it’s going to die, or get to reproduce far less than it’s other counterparts. If it’s useless, it gets the same chance. If the change is a positive, then what do you get? More babies.
The example can sound very good, if not for several problems. What did those antibiotics target, if they were similar to some of the antibiotics that are commonly found in those areas then, thats where the resistance came from. Get one bacteria, allow it to divide a bit, add antibiotics. If most die, but a few surive, allow them to reproduce more, chances are that if you tried the same antibiotic it will be even less effective. To do this experiment, don’t allow any other bacteria get near the sample. That way the whole argument about bacteria exchange genetic material won’t apply. How will you keep the other bacteria away, well there are ways but it’s expensive, but it’s been proven.

Evolution is change, natural selection determines what survives and what dies.

The bacteria evolved a defence mechanism against the antibiotics, they were lucky to have it work against synthetic antibiotics as well. Then research the location of the actual soil, and any nearby sources of antibiotics. Like if they were near farms, well doesn’t take much imagination to see what happens next.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Evidence of what exactly? Viruses remain viruses, bacteria remain bacteria, and the breeding of dogs produces dogs.

Peace,
Ed

Are you serious? This translates to “i know nothing about science!”

 

[geometer]

Are you serious? This translates to “i know nothing about science!”

I took a biology course. The Introduction to Biology for Biology Majors. I got a B for my efforts. Evolution was mentioned during the course. We did experiments, which were all biology experiments. There were no experiments for us to do in evolution, I did ask for some.

Our instructor told us that he was directly related to De Morgan of logic fame. He told us that he did not believe in God. I asked if he believed in evolution he said he did, but he could not convince anyone of it.

He really was a nice guy, and toward the end of the course he told us that he son had decided to become a Rabbi…

 

[liquidpele]

Are you serious? This translates to “i know nothing about science!”

Yes, he’s serious. He told me the same thing in another tread. ed… do you think a random car picked in the world has the same probability of getting in a fender bender as it does for catching on fire? Now, translate that to mutations. You’re essentially trying to ask why we don’t see cars catching on fire everywhere if we see fender benders all the time.

 

[reggieM]

Atheists Against Darwinism

 

[edwest2]

Thank you reggieM.

There is actual design in nature. To assume otherwise, necessarily assumes that random chemical processes could lead to life. Of course, the odds are against this. The retort is, well, it only has to happen once. No. That first living thing would need minimum requirements. It would need machinery to acquire food and/or energy for itself and machinery to reproduce. This would require instructions.

I think the biggest obstacle is the great fear that the anti-theist belief system would suffer a crushing blow if Intelligent Design were accepted as science. That said, I am confident that individual scientists who see plants and animals as designed could look at existing methods of investigation. Archaeologists do this all the time. This is a rock and this is not. It was designed. It bears specified complexity. It is functional and/or decorative. An intelligence made this. These types of observations are unambiguous and are made all the time and the results rest in museums and books and magazine articles.

The mention that science does not understand creativity is an excellent observation. Most of my friends are writers and artists. They can show the process in action. So there is physical evidence that creativity exists. It is observable. But the idea that science does not have a formula to reduce it to some mechanical activity should not be used as an argument against its existence.

Hopefully, this work continues.

Peace,
Ed

 

[liquidpele]

Thank you reggieM.

There is actual design in nature. To assume otherwise, necessarily assumes that random chemical processes could lead to life. Of course, the odds are against this. The retort is, well, it only has to happen once. No. That first living thing would need minimum requirements. It would need machinery to acquire food and/or energy for itself and machinery to reproduce. This would require instructions.

I think the biggest obstacle is the great fear that the anti-theist belief system would suffer a crushing blow if Intelligent Design were accepted as science. That said, I am confident that individual scientists who see plants and animals as designed could look at existing methods of investigation. Archaeologists do this all the time. This is a rock and this is not. It was designed. It bears specified complexity. It is functional and/or decorative. An intelligence made this. These types of observations are unambiguous and are made all the time and the results rest in museums and books and magazine articles.

The mention that science does not understand creativity is an excellent observation. Most of my friends are writers and artists. They can show the process in action. So there is physical evidence that creativity exists. It is observable. But the idea that science does not have a formula to reduce it to some mechanical activity should not be used as an argument against its existence.

Hopefully, this work continues.

Peace,
Ed

First, you’re mixing abiogenesis with evolution again. STOP DOING THAT. It’s irritating.

Science itself would suffer a blow of ID was accepted as science in the school systems. This is because… wait for it… IT’S NOT SCIENCE. Yet. Maybe it could be. When you actually find some evidence that supports your case beyond “it looks complicated” then let us know. And remember, even if you find some pieces of evidence, that means a theory has to then include all the current evidence too - you don’t get to just say that the previous findings don’t count anymore. And all the evidence points to an evolutionary model so far.

The fact that you can’t study creativity is immaterial and is an attempt to muddy the waters by attributing creativity to things that you believe are created and thus include creativity even though you have no evidence of any of it. The fact that creativity exists is not an argument against science of evolution, you’re only saying it is. An artist can paint a paining, but that doesn’t mean the painting DOES anything, it’s only creative or meaningful to those that choose to look at it that way.

 

[edwest2]

It will be interesting to see which explanation scientists will go for first: comets or seeding by aliens. In the meantime, guard the schools I guess.

Peace,
Ed

 

[liquidpele]

It will be interesting to see which explanation scientists will go for first: comets or seeding by aliens. In the meantime, guard the schools I guess.

Peace,
Ed

I’m pretty sure scientists will go towards an explanation that is supported by evidence, whatever it may be. As for your “guarding the schools” comment, do you realize how ridiculous you sound? Scientists want to keep only science in a science class. How hard is that to understand?

 

[reggieM]

Here’s some great science from Wilhelm Boelsche’s, *Evolution of Man: *

should not the embryo of mammals, reptiles and birds show at least traces of a tadpole or fish stage in the mother’s womb, or in the egg? It is the most remarkable proof of the reliability of the biogenetic law that this is actually the case… The embryo of human being at a certain stage is likewise provided with traces of gills on its neck and with fin-like disks in the places where arms and legs develop later on. This is as universally accepted as the fact first stated by Copernicus that the earth revolves around the sun. No man who has the least respect for truth can deny this fact. Nevertheless, there are people who find this very plain fact of embryology very little to their liking, and who therefore frequently attempt to brand it as a “falsification.” But every university text-book in the hands of every student of medicine, which is used as a basis for the state examinations, contains a statement of this simple fact, and if any student were to deny it during his examination he would be severely reprimanded by the state examiner. People who still refer to such undeniable and scientifically recognized facts as falsifications place themselves outside the pale of all moral premises and scientific research.

That is great to know. Anyone who denies that human beings are born with fins and gills place themselves “outside the pale”. This is a universally accepted “fact” of evolution – more certain than gravity or that the earth revolves around the sun.

Anyone who denies the facts that evolutionists proclaim is clearly ridiculous and knows nothing about science.

Evolutionists know what they’re talking about and other people simply don’t. Anyone who doubts this is probably just stupid or else is just a liar.

T.H. Huxley’s his 1871 essay *Darwin’s Critics *teaches us the true meaning of Science and we should all accept it and never dare to question it:

Thus far the contradiction between Catholic verity and Scientific verity is complete and absolute, quite independently of the truth or falsehood of the doctrine of evolution. But, for those who hold the doctrine of evolution, all the Catholic verities about the creation of living beings must be no less false… In addition to the truth of the doctrine of evolution, indeed, one of its greatest merits in my eyes, is the fact that it occupies a position of complete and irreconcilable antagonism to that vigorous and consistent enemy of the highest intellectual, moral, and social life of mankind – the Catholic Church.

Evolutionist Sam Harris wisely teaches us that it would be best just to kill people who do not have the correct ideas about various things:

Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Sam Harris - The End of Faith, pg. 52, 53