Book: The Hoax Called Evolution

[reggieM]

Funny, in all my childhood Catechism classes, I was told that it was perfectly OK for a Catholic to accept the theory of evolution.

If the Pope thinks it’s compatible with Catholic teaching, then what’s the problem? Or is the Pope not a True Catholic ™ ?

The theory of evolution is built on a foundation of philosophical materialism. Mr. Darwin explicitly designed it that way – his interest was in proving that God did not create anything in nature (but that everything is the result of “fixed natural laws”).

It’s important to understand that the Pope warned about “materialist” theories of evolution and that they are a danger to the faith.

As a matter for your own personal reflection: What, precisely, did God create and how do you know that?

 

[edwest2]

In terms of evolutionary science, how do these two scientists distinguish between theistic evolution and atheistic evolution? What, precisely, is “theistic” about their version of natural selection operating on mutations? Did God create the mutations? If so, what evidence do they use to show that? If God had nothing to do with evolution, then what does the term “theistic evolution” mean (as opposed to “atheistic evolution”)?

Exactly right, reggieM. If the contents of the Biology textbook are perfectly acceptable to people who believe that nothing but natural, non-God, forces brought them into existence, how does tacking God or some Intelligence onto it change anything? That is the crux of the debate here. Always will be.

It seems to me, God is presented as the sugar coating to make the idea palatable to Christians, but when you look at the science: no evidence of God, Intelligence, or space aliens (although that idea has been proposed).

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

Exactly right, reggieM. If the contents of the Biology textbook are perfectly acceptable to people who believe that nothing but natural, non-God, forces brought them into existence, how does tacking God or some Intelligence onto it change anything? That is the crux of the debate here. Always will be.

It seems to me, God is presented as the sugar coating to make the idea palatable to Christians, but when you look at the science: no evidence of God, Intelligence, or space aliens (although that idea has been proposed).

That’s true, Ed. The challenge is for any Catholic who accepts “theistic evolution”. Where in the science literature is that view reflected? The questions I posed previously are usually met with silence or incoherent replies.

Many Catholics are afraid to challenge the claims of evolutionary theory because they think that “only fundamentalist Bible Christians” do that. But that’s a false notion.

With this fear of confronting atheistic evolution comes a willingness to embrace anything and everything that evolutionists claim - including those “facts” which are later refuted, revised, overturned, and “reconsidered” when contradictory information arises. A theory should show that all new data fits the theoretical claims. In the case of evolution, however, the theory merely adjusts itself whenever contradictory data is discovered.

Theistic evolution is a rear-guard action which was believed necessary because evolutionary theorists gave the impression that their ideas were “as certain as gravity” and Catholics did not want to look ignorant. So, in a spirit of compromise they came up with this notion of “theistic evolution” which is exactly the same as atheistic-evolution except for the sugar coating of God tacked on somewhere - a God who does absolutely nothing in nature.

The same Catholics are very fervent in their attacks on Creationists, and also in their attacks on Intelligent Design theory.

When pressed, the same Catholics will claim that “God created the natural laws” (the “laws” of random mutation, apparently).

So, God intelligently designed the mutations. But it looks like they occur randomly.
Perhaps they could say, God placed fossils in the rocks all at the same moment in history – but it just looks like they were added over millions of years.

So, God created the illusion of random mutations – an illusion that fits perfectly with the atheistic claims that “if a god exists, it is a god that does nothing”.

The “god” of theistic evolution does nothing and is a meaningless entity in terms of modern science. It is a god that created nothing in nature and gives zero evidence in nature of its own existence.

The only way to reconcile that god with the true God of the Catholic faith, is to destroy Catholic teaching, as Ken Miller has done. In his view, his god didn’t know that evolution would create human beings. His god is ignorant, and had to rely on random mutations to create life. Beyond that, I’ve heard several Catholic evolutionists here on CAF deny the teachings of Humani Generis, and some go farther and deny original sin.

Meanwhile, the many irreconcilable issues that emerge within evolutionary theory are ignored. If it can be shown that one organism changed slightly over time, this means that molecules-to-man evolutionary theory is true and nobody can doubt it.

 

[reggieM]

Perhaps the Catholics who argue against Intelligent Design have somehow decided that St. Thomas Aquinas’ teachings were refuted by Darwin. If true, how can they claim that Darwinism has nothing to do with the Catholic faith? In other words, if because of Darwinian theory we have to get rid of classic Catholic apologetics, then Darwin’s ideas were in profound conflict with Catholic claims – and Darwin won the conflict.

Dover Kitzmiller Case court transcript
(140 page file, pdf)

We initially note that John Haught, a theologian who testified as an expert witness for Plaintiffs and who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and religion, succinctly explained to the Court that the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. Dr. Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit that this intelligent designer “everyone understands to be God.” The syllogism described by Dr. Haught is essentially the same argument for ID as presented by defense expert witnesses Professors Behe and Minnich who employ the phrase “purposeful arrangement of parts.”

Of course, ID arguments go back to the Old Testament through the apostolic fathers …

 

[buffalo]

You are absolutely right! Even St. Augustine of Hippo questioned a literal 6-day creation. As did Origen.

Maybe evolution will be discredited. Maybe another theory will take its place. To be clear, a scientific theory is far from a literary theory - fsteiger.com/theory.html. It doesn’t matter what one believes about how God created the earth and its creatures.

St Augustine was postulating an instant creation with potentiality, not long ages.

 

[buffalo]

There is no such thing as “macro-evolution” or “micro-evolution”. Variation within, and adaptation of, species is evolution.

And Pope John Paul II is on record as saying that evolution is “more than a theory”. Sounds like an endorsement to me.

But even if he didn’t, why should that matter? If something is true, it’s true even if no one on the planet believes in it.

So we agree no new species just variation within?

 

[AChris]

The Church has always taught Creationism.

The whole world believed in creationism until just recently.

Some folks thought up the theory of evolution, and many in the Church accepted it without even studying it. The only studies by Church folks were some borrowed atheists in Rome, who didn’t even consider Creationism a possibility. Of course a theory will seem true if you are already convinced it is true.

I don’t believe St. Augustine doubted the 6 days of creation. What I do know is that he said if scientific laws (not theories) are proven, and they contradict theology, then theology should be reconsidered. But evolution is just a theory (JPII said maybe more than a hypothesis) and therefore St. Augustine’s words don’t apply.

So many people in the Church have increasingly believed the evolutionist scientists, even apparently some popes. But nothing infallible has been said - except that God created man out of “nothing” (4th Latern Council) and that we can’t even consider the possibility that we and apes have a common ancestry (Pius XII).

 

[buffalo]

There is no such thing as “macro-evolution” or “micro-evolution”. Variation within, and adaptation of, species is evolution.

And Pope John Paul II is on record as saying that evolution is “more than a theory”. Sounds like an endorsement to me.

But even if he didn’t, why should that matter? If something is true, it’s true even if no one on the planet believes in it.

Pay attention to the Pope’s
Darwin’s Divisions

*The Pope, the Cardinal, the Jesuit & the Evolving Debate About Origins

• It makes no obvious difference to our salvation whether the geometry of our universe is Euclidian, whether quantum mechanics is the last word in atomic physics, or whether the Big Bang is the correct model for the development of the universe. These theories witness to the power of the human intellect, but few would claim that they bear on questions of faith and morals.
  Evolution, on the other hand, says something about the origin of man, and in this way can, at least in theory, conflict with religious dogma. And so, although the Catholic Church seldom speaks about scientific theories, from time to time it breaks the silence to address the question of biological evolution. It does so when it perceives that some Catholics accept as true a scientific theory that denies some important Christian teaching about man and his origins.
  Darwinism has famously become just such an alternative creation account. Both the classical theory and the enhanced neo-Darwinist synthesis (which includes genetics, statistics, and molecular biology) claim that apparent design can result from blind forces. Although some Darwinists and neo-Darwinists might protest that their scheme does not banish God from the picture, most are, whether they know it or not, crass materialists.

more…

 

[mathematician]

True, but it automatically proves that evolutionary theory is not an explanation – this gives more room for an alternative like ID.

If you read somebody like Behe more closely, you will find that even he signs up to some kind of evolutionary process. He just has God occasionally butting in to help it over the odd hurdle or two. I suppose the evidence for evolution is too strong even for him to ignore.

 

[buffalo]

If you read somebody like Behe more closely, you will find that even he signs up to some kind of evolutionary process. He just has God occasionally butting in to help it over the odd hurdle or two. I suppose the evidence for evolution is too strong even for him to ignore.

At this point Behe accepts common descent. Most other ID’ers have an issue with it.

 

[mathematician]

Some folks thought up the theory of evolution, and many in the Church accepted it without even studying it. The only studies by Church folks were some borrowed atheists in Rome, who didn’t even consider Creationism a possibility. Of course a theory will seem true if you are already convinced it is true.

I am sure Francisco Ayala will be highly chuffed to leard that he is an atheist; borrowed or otherwise.

 

[edwest2]

Perhaps the Catholics who argue against Intelligent Design have somehow decided that St. Thomas Aquinas’ teachings were refuted by Darwin. If true, how can they claim that Darwinism has nothing to do with the Catholic faith? In other words, if because of Darwinian theory we have to get rid of classic Catholic apologetics, then Darwin’s ideas were in profound conflict with Catholic claims – and Darwin won the conflict.

Dover Kitzmiller Case court transcript
(140 page file, pdf)

We initially note that John Haught, a theologian who testified as an expert witness for Plaintiffs and who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and religion, succinctly explained to the Court that the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. Dr. Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit that this intelligent designer “everyone understands to be God.” The syllogism described by Dr. Haught is essentially the same argument for ID as presented by defense expert witnesses Professors Behe and Minnich who employ the phrase “purposeful arrangement of parts.”

Of course, ID arguments go back to the Old Testament through the apostolic fathers …

I look at the instant hostile response to Intelligent Design and think: If there is zero evidence for this, as some claim, why the high alert status? Why bring all weapons to bear on… nothing? Why is Dover the instant, carved in stone answer to nothing? Aha! It’s Creationism all over again! What? Guard the school doors and check for any ID literature?

Design in nature must be denied, since it clearly implies a designer.

And yes, only crazy fundamentalists think, for even a microsecond, that evolution is not as advertised.

In the space of a few weeks, scientists suddenly realized that birds have a fundamental skeletal difference between the arrangement of their bones and the bones of the dinosaurs they supposedly descended from. No problem. We’ll just assume that birds evolved in parallel to the dinosaurs. Then mammals, which proliferated after the dinosaurs were wiped out, did not become more numerous because the dinosaurs were gone but due to a change in temperature, and as one poster pointed out, a change in oxygen level. May I respectfully ask: What was everyone breathing before this?

I like science. I really do. I’m reading up on it constantly, but the mix and match, it doesn’t matter how badly mutilated it gets theory of evolution is a mess. No criticism or finding can change the factualness of it.

As we learn more about the nanomachinery in the cell, the interdependence of the parts and the fact that a lot of parts have to be in precisely the right place, at precise dimensions and with specific functions to make it all go, and people are still saying it assembled itself. The computer I’m typing on did not assemble itself.

People like to quote Pope John Paul II, but what I rarely see is his statement that there is actual design in nature.

This makes me sincerely question why people are posting in favor of theistic evolution when all they are endorsing is the Biology textbook. The linkage between God and the text is fictional. It does not exist. The Church tells us that by using natural (non-God) human reason, we can detect God in nature.

I’m reminded of Paul in the Bible, telling people: If Christ is not risen then your faith is in vain. Got that? If this did not actually happen, for real, you’ve got nothing.

Peace,
Ed

 

[mathematician]

I look at the instant hostile response to Intelligent Design and think: If there is zero evidence for this, as some claim, why the high alert status? Why bring all weapons to bear on… nothing?

As one Catholic scientist described it, the problem with postulating the miraculous is that it immediately brings any further scientific investigation to an end. “God did it,” and there is nothing further to say.

Why do the planets orbit the sun? “God does it” Jolly good, we don’t need a theory of gravitation then.

What causes disease? “God does it” Jolly good, so we don’t need to investigate any physical causes then.

That is why even theistic scientists have a problem with ID. That, and the fact that it conjures up the famous god of the gaps (who rightly has his name spelt with a small g).

 

[redneck22]

Then the article wasn’t about evolution. Interesting that you tried to prove your knowledge in that post with the mention of your background, but got a basic definition of the subject wrong.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”

 

[edwest2]

As one Catholic scientist described it, the problem with postulating the miraculous is that it immediately brings any further scientific investigation to an end. “God did it,” and there is nothing further to say.

Why do the planets orbit the sun? “God does it” Jolly good, we don’t need a theory of gravitation then.

What causes disease? “God does it” Jolly good, so we don’t need to investigate any physical causes then.

That is why even theistic scientists have a problem with ID. That, and the fact that it conjures up the famous god of the gaps (who rightly has his name spelt with a small g).

Did you not read a single word I wrote? Speaking generally, I am tired of people rewriting or rephrasing what I actually write. If scientists found an obviously complex, mechanical device on Mars, would they assume an intelligence designed it? Of course they would, even if there were zero traces of that intelligence on the planet.

You are familiar with the SETI project, right? Time and money is being spent by scientists to find “intelligently produced” signals in outer space. They have criteria for determining what is background noise and what are signs of intelligence. That is and will always be my point.

Let’s get back to the cell. It is far more complex than the computer I’m working on. Do you believe it assembled itself? Yes or no?

One last thing. There’s this dodgy idea going around that some part could just attach itself to a cell and cause some useful function. When the cell divides, without DNA assembly instructions for the new part, it does not get reproduced.

Peace,
Ed

 

[mathematician]

If scientists found an obviously complex, mechanical device on Mars, would they assume an intelligence designed it? Of course they would, even if there were zero traces of that intelligence on the planet.

The most that you might be able to establish with that kind of argument is that you need the word “theistic” in front of the word “evolution”. Evolution is no longer “just a theory”, no matter how often creationists parrot that phrase to themselves.

Let’s get back to the cell. It is far more complex than the computer I’m working on. Do you believe it assembled itself? Yes or no?

Fine, only you are there talking about abio-genesis (origin of life) rather than evolution (origin of the species). At the moment abio-genesis is a complete mystery, but that does not mean that you should put your money on it forever remaining so.

You might be interested in this quotation:

Would you not say to yourself, ‘Some super- calculating intellect must have designed
the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through
the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule.’ Of course you would . . … A common
sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics,
as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking
about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to
put this conclusion almost beyond question.

Do you think the person arguing there is arguing against evolution? Nope. He is arguing that evolution (amongst other things) seems to point in the general direction of there being a God. (Which is slightly surprising, given that he was better known for being an atheist.)

 

[StAnastasia]

Let’s get back to the cell. It is far more complex than the computer I’m working on. Do you believe it assembled itself? Yes or no?

We don’t have any reason to believe it didn’t assemble itself.

 

[StAnastasia]

I am sure Francisco Ayala will be highly chuffed to leard that he is an atheist; borrowed or otherwise.

I don’t think Francisco is. Virtually all working biologists accept evolution, and numerous of them are believers in God as well.

 

[StAnastasia]

Some folks thought up the theory of evolution, and many in the Church accepted it without even studying it. The only studies by Church folks were some borrowed atheists in Rome, who didn’t even consider Creationism a possibility.

This claim is either an outright lie, or evidence of profound ignorance of the history of science.

 

[StAnastasia]

A theory should show that all new data fits the theoretical claims. In the case of evolution, however, the theory merely adjusts itself whenever contradictory data is discovered.

ReggieM, you are correct – that’s precisely how science works! As apparently anomalous data come in, either they are shown not to be anomalous, or the theory is revised in response to the new data, or the theory itself is abandoned and replaced with a new theory. In 150 years of research, no data have yet been discovered that have compelled biologists to abandon the theory of evolution. This shows its amazing explanatory strength, and why it is accepted by virtually all working biologists.

StAnastasia