Book: The Hoax Called Evolution

[reggieM]

 **And to tell the truth, rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more     accurate to speak of the theories of evolution. The use of the plural is required     here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of     evolution, and in part because of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are     materialist and reductionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final     judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.**

In an important follow-up to this statement, the Holy See published this document in 2004:

Human Persons Created in the Image of God

which teaches:

In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, **Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins **and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.

 

[StAnastasia]

God is responsible for everything. How are we sure that what we think are natural causes are not always guided by Gods hand? We do not. So we make assumptions.

We are not sure. An atheist and a theist can both look at Yosemite Valley and see natural beauty and evidence of geological history. What distinguishes them is that the theistic evolutionist sees infinite if inscrutable divine wisdom behind the laws of an ancient, dynamic, and evolving universe.

What would a YEC see? A 6,000 year-old U-shaped valley created by God to appear as if it had been carved by glaciers. Why would God have done this? Why of course, to serve as prime real estate where capitalists could build the Ahwanee hotel and the concession facilities of the Curry Company.

StAnastasia

 

[reggieM]

What would a YEC see? A 6,000 year-old U-shaped valley created by God to appear as if it had been carved by glaciers. Why would God have done this?

To quote your previous post – “because He/She wanted to”.

 

[reggieM]

I agree with this review of Francis Collins’ book, The Language of God – I struggled to read that book, and I found nothing that explained what the language of God in the cell was supposed to be.

I just read Collins’ Language of God earlier this week. Lame. There is very little meat in it.

Cambrian Explosion – “Evolution is true. The fossil record doesn’t show what it should. Therefore the fossil record is incomplete.”

Abiogenesis – “The evidence doesn’t support it but we should not posit design because science could fill in the gaps later. This is not a place to ‘wager our faith’.”

Common Descent – “Is true and here’s some evidence followed by laughable argumentation on most of it.”

Random Mutation – “I don’t want to explain what this means to my laymen Christian audience but rest assured it is compatible with Christianity.”

Natural Selection – “I don’t want to explain what this means to my laymen Christian audience but rest assured it is compatible with Christianity.”

DNA – “DNA is the Language of God because it is, even though He didn’t make it.”

Seriously, this last should be the thesis of the book but takes less than two pages. After reading *Signature in the Cell *it was greatly disappointing.

Creation Science – “They are wrong and if we accept they are right it would destroy science.”

Intelligent Design – “Should be considered seriously but irreducible complexity has been refuted, therefore intelligent design is heading to the bottom of the ocean.”

Theistic Evolution – “This view has been unsuccessful in spreading to the public because it doesn’t have a snazzy name. Therefore it should be renamed BioLogos.”

Thesis of the book – “All this argument and bad reasoning by Christians is hurting our witness to atheists. Therefore everyone should stop fighting and predicting disaster if the other side wins (unless the side is the aforementioned creationism) and just agree with me to make the world a happy and harmonious place.”

That’s a pretty good summary.

Here is more …

Probabilities – “Life is highly improbable but that doesn’t matter because God is outside of time and picked the unspecified entity from an unspecified random set that randomly gave rise to life.”

Correction to Theistic Evolution entry:

“This view is correct but has been unsuccessful in spreading to the public because it doesn’t have a snazzy name. Therefore it should be renamed BioLogos and you should believe it because I headed the Human Genome Project, the greatest scientific accomplish in our time and maybe ever.”

Fine-tuning – “Several constants are fine-tuned. Some marksmen shot a target. Therefore God made the universe and this is one of only two arguments for His existence besides Jesus.”

C.S. Lewis – “Is awesome and the reason I converted to Christianity. I know Christians revere his opinion and he believed in evolution. He also came up with the Moral Law argument which is the only other good argument for God’s existence besides Jesus.”

Genesis – “The Hebrew word yom does not necessarily mean a literal 24-hour day. None of the early Christians interpreted the Genesis creation story literally because St. Augustine wasn’t sure if it should be. The literal interpretation of Genesis was invented less than a hundred years ago. Bishop Ussher calculated the date of creation. And, oh yeah, the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 are incompatible because in Genesis 2 God formed Adam from the dust of the earth but Genesis 1 says he created plants before that. So…there wouldn’t have been any dust…lying around…”

Dr. Collins actually has two arguments for the existence of God. The Intelligent Design evidenced in the fine-tuning of the universe, and the fact that the moral law is evidence of the influence of God. Both are ID arguments. But for him, he would prefer to call them something else and also attack ID theory (even though he uses ID arguments). That’s consistent with his interest giving Theistic Evolution the new name “BioLogos” (the L must be capitalized or it is a violation of trademark).

 

[StAnastasia]

To quote your previous post – “because He/She wanted to”.

Maybe Native Americans are right – our God is Coyote, the Trickster!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote_%28mythology%29

 

[rossum]

Yes. The Law of Averages brings its assembly to virtually zero.

Given a model of the method of assembly, the calculated average for that model may well be virtually zero. You then have to show that the model you are using is an accurate reflection of reality. I can calculate the probability of the Bible existing to be virtually zero, but since the model I used for my calculation (random assembly) is not correct my result is worthless.

Pretty much every creationist/ID model I have ever seen correctly models random mutation, but fails to include natural selection. A model which fails to include natural selection is not a model of evolution so any results from such a model are useless when discussing evolution. You need to show us your model.

It brings its ability to become more complex to zero.

Incorrect. Evolution can and does increase complexity in populations of living organisms.

Information in biological systems does not come from nowhere.

Correct. Information in biological systems is copied from the environment; the information originates in the environment. That is how evolution increases complexity - by copying the information needed from the environment.

rossum

 

[reggieM]

Maybe Native Americans are right – our God is Coyote, the Trickster!

He/She intelligently designed mutations so they look like they occur randomly, when actually that’s an illusion. He/She made evolution look like no god was necessary just because He/She wanted to.

He/She made evolutionists believe the illusion that the earth is billions of years old, when it is really only 6,000 years old.

When you speak about “our” God – you’re talking about a group of believers that accepts your view of a god. I’m not a part of that community and I don’t share your belief.

 

[mathematician]

He/She intelligently designed mutations so they look like they occur randomly, when actually that’s an illusion.

If you drop a cricket ball onto a sheet of glass, the fragments will go in all directions, and in a way which most people would be inclined to describe as random. You cannot conclude from that that there are no causal laws operating, or that Newton’s laws of motion have ceased to apply.

A fabulously complicated process, which took place over billions of years, and spread over large geographical areas, could hardly fail but to defeat our ability to detect any order in the apparent randomness.

 

[StAnastasia]

When you speak about “our” God – you’re talking about a group of believers that accepts your view of a god. I’m not a part of that community and I don’t share your belief.

Don’t worry – that’s not my belief community either!

 

[buffalo]

What would a YEC see? A 6,000 year-old U-shaped valley created by God to appear as if it had been carved by glaciers. Why would God have done this? Why of course, to serve as prime real estate where capitalists could build the Ahwanee hotel and the concession facilities of the Curry Company.

StAnastasia

Oh that’s a load of baloney. That is denigrating God’s creation. God has no obligation to create natural or supernatural in a way that satisfies us.

 

[StAnastasia]

Oh that’s a load of baloney. That is denigrating God’s creation. God has no obligation to create natural or supernatural in a way that satisfies us.

I agree absolutely! Although there were English natural theologians who argued that the wisdom of God is manifest in the fact that each of us has a unique signature to make cheque writing possible. Thus, natural theology could be used to underwrite the system of modern banking!

 

[reggieM]

A fabulously complicated process, which took place over billions of years, and spread over large geographical areas, could hardly fail but to defeat our ability to detect any order in the apparent randomness.

It seems you’re now claiming that order is actually there, but since things are so complicated it “defeats our ability” to detect it. What you’re giving is the foundation for ID theory. Namely, that order is actually there and it is worth the effort to try to detect it.

This is the conundrum for theistic evolution. The guy you mentioned as an exemplar for that idea, Francis Collins, claims that the fine-tuning of the universe could not be the result of random processes and thus serves as evidence for the existence of God.

Once again – that is the ID argument.

 

[liquidpele]

Liquipele, if you re-read my first sentence carefully you’ll see that I was not assuming that at all. You will see that I agree with you: a mechanical process is metaphysically neutral.

Oh Good, I thought I had upset you or something! My bad for not reading that carefully enough.

 

[mathematician]

It seems you’re now claiming that order is actually there, but since things are so complicated it “defeats our ability” to detect it. What you’re giving is the foundation for ID theory. Namely, that order is actually there and it is worth the effort to try to detect it.

This is the conundrum for theistic evolution. The guy you mentioned as an exemplar for that idea, Francis Collins, claims that the fine-tuning of the universe could not be the result of random processes and thus serves as evidence for the existence of God.

Once again – that is the ID argument.

The ID argument is to try and identify things which could not have happened except through direct divine intervention. In that they have failed.

The fundamental constants, with which the fine tuning argument concerns itself, could not be the result of natural processes for the very good reason that they were there from the very moment of creation. Before there had even been any natural processes.

 

[edwest2]

The ID argument is to try and identify things which could not have happened except through direct divine intervention. In that they have failed.

The fundamental constants, with which the fine tuning argument concerns itself, could not be the result of natural processes for the very good reason that they were there from the very moment of creation. Before there had even been any natural processes.

That is a false statement. Intelligent Design recognizes what the Catholic Church already knows, there is actual design in nature. Those who say there isn’t are ignoring reality.

I know that only an intelligence can design specific, complex and functional living things. I also know how comfortable some people are whenever they hear that aliens or comets or some other type of natural mechanism spread life to earth. The wishful thinking that proclaims, without proof, that natural laws are natural laws because they created their own order and function - naturally - is just that, a wish.

Peace,
Ed

 

[mathematician]

That is a false statement. Intelligent Design recognizes what the Catholic Church already knows, there is actual design in nature. Those who say there isn’t are ignoring reality.

I know that only an intelligence can design specific, complex and functional living things. I also know how comfortable some people are whenever they hear that aliens or comets or some other type of natural mechanism spread life to earth. The wishful thinking that proclaims, without proof, that natural laws are natural laws because they created their own order and function - naturally - is just that, a wish.

Peace,
Ed

The defining characteristic of ID is that it tries to dress itself up as a scientific theory, which it isn’t. IDers prattle on about “irreducible complexity” bacause they want to demonstrate that something couldn’t have happened without God occasionally crashing in to help evolution over a hurdle which natural processes couldn’t have managed. And as I say, they have failed in that.

If you want to look at the complexity of nature, and give what you see a theistic interpretation, that is fine by me. But that isn’t science; it is natural theology.

 

[edwest2]

The defining characteristic of ID is that it tries to dress itself up as a scientific theory, which it isn’t. IDers prattle on about “irreducible complexity” bacause they want to demonstrate that something couldn’t have happened without God occasionally crashing in to help evolution over a hurdle which natural processes couldn’t manage. And as I say, they have failed in that.

If you want to give the findings of science a theistic interpretation, that is fine by me.

I think you’ve defined the whole issue. Most of the people who post here in support of evolution cannot connect God to the process in any way, shape or form. Not through science.

Do you understand what they are prattling on about? Have you read any of the writing about the bacterial flagellum? It needs to have a multitude of parts to function properly, remove one, which can be done, and it stops working. Take a car engine, the analogy holds. Remove a part and it stops working or overheats and seizes.

You are only offering what I call the insistence argument. Here is an example of a vicious and emotional reply to a series of positive reviews for a creationist book on amazon:

“You are a christian extremist and a terrorist… and are in turn trying to destroy America’s place in the world economy.” This is the distilled essence of the “argument.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[mathematician]

Do you understand what they are prattling on about? Have you read any of the writing about the bacterial flagellum? It needs to have a multitude of parts to function properly, remove one, which can be done, and it stops working. Take a car engine, the analogy holds. Remove a part and it stops working or overheats and seizes.

Not that one again. That was dealt with just a few posts back. It cuts no ice with people like Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins, Sam Berry, Francisco Ayala, Joan Roughgarden oe Dennis Alexander, who, may I remind you, are all Christians - and at least three of them are Catholics.

 

[rossum]

Do you understand what they are prattling on about? Have you read any of the writing about the bacterial flagellum?

Yes. Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum.

It needs to have a multitude of parts to function properly, remove one, which can be done, and it stops working. Take a car engine, the analogy holds. Remove a part and it stops working or overheats and seizes.

But many of those parts have other functions - a radiator is part of a car engine, but there are other radiators that are used to heat houses or to cool fridges. Radiators can evolve for some other function and be co-opted. The starter motor is essential for a modern engine, but it was not required for early engines - they had a hand crank. Parts that were once useful, but not essential, have become essential. We know that Irreducible Complexity can evolve. We have experimental results showing that IC can evolve. We have observations of IC evolving in bacteria. We have calculations from Professor Behe showing that simple IC systems can evolve. Merely because something is IC does not mean that it cannot evolve.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Not that one again. That was dealt with just a few posts back. It cuts no ice with people like Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins, Sam Berry, Francisco Ayala, Joan Roughgarden oe Dennis Alexander, who, may I remind you, are all Christians - and at least three of them are Catholics.

It works. Period. But Mr. Miller, in particular, has followed the party line regarding evolution. God becomes the bystander in Creation, or, at best, the kick starter. I’ve chosen not to worship science or the human mind. The more I read about evolution, the less likely it actually worked as currently advertised. If a similar process occurred, then God is a direct causal agent. And at the current rate of revision, I don’t think many conclusions about the theory will hold for long.

Peace,
Ed