Conclusive evidence for Design!

[buffalo]

OK buffalo,

I respect your answer, you obviously took a couple of minutes to write your answer.

I nevertheless think you are highly delusional. I mean suppose you could prove evolution is wrong, why not go to Harvard and become the next biology nobel price winner? I am not kidding, if you can prove that 90% of what biologist study (because evolution has a huge influence on other sciences as well) is wrong, you could become the greatest scientific mind alive today.

Bigger than Darwin!

But you won’t because you are making stuff up.

CU

PS Did the dinosaurs go extinct because poeple ate too many dino-burgers?

Every reply is backed up and substantiated. We can go through them one at a time if you wish.

I submit that if we tried to study the design of life we would be further ahead.

The sign of no rebuttal is the typical resort to an ad hominem attack.

 

[buffalo]

God of the Gaps refers to theists declaring that since science can’t explain a particular natural phenomenon, god must be directly responsible. As science has been able to explain more and more natural phenomena throughout history, the “gaps” in the natural reasons behind natural phenomena have shrunk. Scientists can not “know they will” eventually explain all the natural reasons behind something. You are correct in saying that there may be some things that science can’t explain, but we can never know for certain if we have reached the limits of scientific inquiry. In that respect, if evolution is proven false, We can’t conclude that god was dierctly responsible. Likewise, as you say, naturalistic scientists can’t definitively conclude that they will find natural answers for phenomena.

I’m just trying to point out that if evolution is proven false, it doesn’t prove god exists. There could be naturalistic explanations that no one has thought of. Or maybe not. We just wouldn’t know.

It actually serves science extremely well. imagine if scientists were told that the leaves changing color in the fall were caused by magical leaf faries, and were satisfied with that explanation. They would never look further to discover the real causes for leaf color change. Similarly, there may be a natural explanation for the origin and variety of life on this planet. If scientists believed that god created everything in six days as it says in the bible, they would never discover those natural explanations.

yes they can, in which case, we would have to throw out faith. however, I haven’t come across any sound reasoning that has contradicted my belief in god.

Evolution in particular bears no threat to what we believe as catholics. As I say, we aren’t biblical literalists. even if evolution were undeniably proven, faith and reason would not be contradictory.



ummm… not sure what you’re getting at here…

As we have peered into the working of the cell our knowledge gap has increased, vastly. It was only a few short decades ago that the cell was thought to be simple. Well know we know better.

As far as science goes we must continue with science. It is a good venture, properly reasoned. A big issue though is when we do not have empirical (observable, testable and predictable) proof of something and we begin storytelling.

Yes it does when it comes to Adam and Eve as numerous other threads have addressed.

 

[buffalo]

ummm… not sure what you’re getting at here…

The diagram shows information flow. The biggest weakness is the human reasoning of our observations.

 

[Studer]

The sign of no rebuttal is the typical resort to an ad hominem attack.

You are right and I am sorry about the last part of my post, it wasn’t necessary.

I am out of that discussion, interesting talk.

CU

 

[zro_x]

As we have peered into the working of the cell our knowledge gap has increased, vastly. It was only a few short decades ago that the cell was thought to be simple. Well know we know better.

I would say that our knowledge gap has decreased, but we have only recently begun to realize just how big that gap is.

As far as science goes we must continue with science. It is a good venture, properly reasoned. A big issue though is when we do not have empirical (observable, testable and predictable) proof of something and we begin storytelling.

agreed

Yes it does when it comes to Adam and Eve as numerous other threads have addressed.

how does evolution contradict Adam and Eve? If you don’t want to lay it out for me again, could you at least refer me to post numbers?

 

[buffalo]

I would say that our knowledge gap has decreased, but we have only recently begun to realize just how big that gap is.

agreed

how does evolution contradict Adam and Eve? If you don’t want to lay it out for me again, could you at least refer me to post numbers?

Evolution purports polygenism. The other issue is it denies Eve coming from Adam.

 

[zro_x]

Evolution purports polygenism. The other issue is it denies Eve coming from Adam.

I’m not sure if we have to believe that Eve came from Adam literally.

As for plygenism, I didn’t know what polygenism was until you put up this post. I looked it up, and it seems that it does contradict the idea of original sin, which I’m pretty sure we have to believe litterally as Catholics. It seems you were right, Buffalo. We have finally found something in the physical universe that poses a real threat to Christianity! This completely turned my perspective on evolution upside-down. I find it extremely unsettling and thrilling that the truth value of Christianity hinges on this one point. I’m going to do a lot more research on polygenism in the future, I can tell you that! Does anyone out there know of any flaws in it?

 

[tonyrey]

It is several years since I first came across “personal explanation” in an article by Professor Richard Swinburne, a eminent English philosopher, a Christian and author of excellent books about the cogency of theism. I thought it was unusual but significant because it stressed the supreme role of reason in explaining anything. In fact all explanations are personal in the sense that only persons give explanations. Without us there wouldn’t be any explanations at all - which puts science in its proper perspective: it is a product of personal, rational activity not an independent authority as it is often implied to be.

Thank you, Robert. My remark about “the folly of the body” was over the top! It is more accurate to say “the limitations of the body” because it cannot be expected to cater for every contingency. Instincts are obviously fallible…

 

[buffalo]

I’m not sure if we have to believe that Eve came from Adam literally.

As for plygenism, I didn’t know what polygenism was until you put up this post. I looked it up, and it seems that it does contradict the idea of original sin, which I’m pretty sure we have to believe litterally as Catholics. It seems you were right, Buffalo. We have finally found something in the physical universe that poses a real threat to Christianity! This completely turned my perspective on evolution upside-down. I find it extremely unsettling and thrilling that the truth value of Christianity hinges on this one point. I’m going to do a lot more research on polygenism in the future, I can tell you that! Does anyone out there know of any flaws in it?

Browse through the Catholic resources here.

Start with this one:
DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS? - A DEFENCE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE - PART I

 

[prodigalson2011]

Evolution purports polygenism. The other issue is it denies Eve coming from Adam.

Evolution does not necessarily entail polygenism. Going back yet again to Nachmanides’ masterful commentary on Genesis, he wrote that the text of Genesis implied that man, the organism, existed long before Adam. God did not specially create Adam’s body, but his “neshama” or intellectual/rational soul. In fact, there was only one physical act of creation, and the creation of spirits/souls were the only other acts of creation. This view has been given credence within the Catholic Church and is strengthened by the fact that it was held by our Jewish brothers centuries before evolution became an issue.

As another poster pointed out, Catholic doctrine does not require one to believe that Eve was literally created from Adam’s side.

 

[Peter_Plato]

God of the Gaps refers to theists declaring that since science can’t explain a particular natural phenomenon, god must be directly responsible. As science has been able to explain more and more natural phenomena throughout history, the “gaps” in the natural reasons behind natural phenomena have shrunk. Scientists can not “know they will” eventually explain all the natural reasons behind something. You are correct in saying that there may be some things that science can’t explain, but we can never know for certain if we have reached the limits of scientific inquiry. In that respect, if evolution is proven false, We can’t conclude that god was dierctly responsible. Likewise, as you say, naturalistic scientists can’t definitively conclude that they will find natural answers for phenomena.

I’m just trying to point out that if evolution is proven false, it doesn’t prove god exists. There could be naturalistic explanations that no one has thought of. Or maybe not. We just wouldn’t know.

The god of the gaps fallacy was actually invented to disparage religious believers by portraying religious belief as limiting to science. The portrayal of the fallacy is, in itself, a fallacy because it does not adequately represent the position of a reasonable theist.

To demonstrate how something is done does not negate the possibility that a purposeful intelligence was behind the event in question. To demonstrate the mechanism by which some event transpires does not eliminate the possibility of a designer for the mechanism. Even if the mechanism is shown to be part of a chain of mechanisms, until the entire chain is explained, there is still an open question as to whether design by intelligence was at play.

The god of the gaps “fallacy” is an “in your face” kind of assertion on the part of some atheists to show that science can explain some hitherto inexplicable events, but that only shows they were inexplicable. This position assumes that a theist must take the position that God’s existence is only demonstrated by gaps in knowledge, which is not the de facto position of reasonable theists. Many theist scientists do not take this view at all. For them science is the opportunity, welcomed by God (since his command is to know, love and serve him) to know the mind of God. To know God more fully is for these people the motivation for scientific inquiry, not an obstacle to undertaking it. Newton was never dissuaded from scientific endeavors by the ineffable nature of some aspects of his pursuit. He may have admitted these to be a mysterious part of God’s working, as a kind of ”we don’t understand it yet, but God does,” but that, in itself, did not mean Newton was advocating abandonment of scientific method at that juncture. He was merely admitting the factual borders of human scientific inquiry, not that inquiry had to stop there, just that it did at that particular point in time. He meant it as a “trail marker,” but not as the flag at the top of the mountain where the trail necessarily ended.

It actually serves science extremely well. imagine if scientists were told that the leaves changing color in the fall were caused by magical leaf faries, and were satisfied with that explanation. They would never look further to discover the real causes for leaf color change. Similarly, there may be a natural explanation for the origin and variety of life on this planet. If scientists believed that god created everything in six days as it says in the bible, they would never discover those natural explanations.

The analogy doesn’t work precisely because theists do not propose “magical fairies” but an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. This proposal, contrary to the limitations of magical fairies, is that science should not stop until the complete explanation is, indeed, found. On the theist view, to discover why leaves turn colour in the fall, means we have uncovered a little more of the intelligent creativity of God. To assume the mechanism does not require intelligence to have designed it is merely another way of saying we had a false conception of God and had falsely held the belief that the limits of our knowledge were the limits of God’s knowledge and because God didn’t know better, he had to use magic. This just shows that our notion of God was not adequate to the task. It doesn’t prove God does not exist, but that the God of our conception does not.

The “gaps” argument works both ways. Science very likely has limits which are yet to be determined. To claim there are possible limits to the scientific method and to our complete understanding of “everything” is no reason to stop inquiry into where those limits actually are. It is the presumptuous and arbitrary demarcating of the boundaries of the gaps that ought to be denounced by scientists and theists alike.

 

[tonyrey]

The god of the gaps fallacy was actually invented to disparage religious believers by portraying religious belief as limiting to science. The portrayal of the fallacy is, in itself, a fallacy because it does not adequately represent the position of a reasonable theist.

To demonstrate how something is done does not negate the possibility that a purposeful intelligence was behind the event in question. To demonstrate the mechanism by which some event transpires does not eliminate the possibility of a designer for the mechanism. Even if the mechanism is shown to be part of a chain of mechanisms, until the entire chain is explained, there is still an open question as to whether design by intelligence was at play.

The god of the gaps “fallacy” is an “in your face” kind of assertion on the part of some atheists to show that science can explain some hitherto inexplicable events, but that only shows they were inexplicable. This position assumes that a theist must take the position that God’s existence is only demonstrated by gaps in knowledge, which is not the de facto position of reasonable theists. Many theist scientists do not take this view at all. For them science is the opportunity, welcomed by God (since his command is to know, love and serve him) to know the mind of God. To know God more fully is for these people the motivation for scientific inquiry, not an obstacle to undertaking it. Newton was never dissuaded from scientific endeavors by the ineffable nature of some aspects of his pursuit. He may have admitted these to be a mysterious part of God’s working, as a kind of ”we don’t understand it yet, but God does,” but that, in itself, did not mean Newton was advocating abandonment of scientific method at that juncture. He was merely admitting the factual borders of human scientific inquiry, not that inquiry had to stop there, just that it did at that particular point in time. He meant it as a “trail marker,” but not as the flag at the top of the mountain where the trail necessarily ended.

The analogy doesn’t work precisely because theists do not propose “magical fairies” but an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. This proposal, contrary to the limitations of magical fairies, is that science should not stop until the complete explanation is, indeed, found. On the theist view, to discover why leaves turn colour in the fall, means we have uncovered a little more of the intelligent creativity of God. To assume the mechanism does not require intelligence to have designed it is merely another way of saying we had a false conception of God and had falsely held the belief that the limits of our knowledge were the limits of God’s knowledge and because God didn’t know better, he had to use magic. This just shows that our notion of God was not adequate to the task. It doesn’t prove God does not exist, but that the God of our conception does not.

The “gaps” argument works both ways. Science very likely has limits which are yet to be determined. To claim there are possible limits to the scientific method and to our complete understanding of “everything” is no reason to stop inquiry into where those limits actually are. It is the presumptuous and arbitrary demarcating of the boundaries of the gaps that ought to be denounced by scientists and theists alike.

A powerful and pellucid post.

It doesn’t occur to people that the “science of the Great Gap” fallacy is the fundamental flaw of materialism. How on earth can science possibly be based on itself and justify faith in its power to explain the whole of reality?

 

[zro_x]

The god of the gaps fallacy was actually invented to disparage religious believers by portraying religious belief as limiting to science. The portrayal of the fallacy is, in itself, a fallacy because it does not adequately represent the position of a reasonable theist.

Just as no reasonable theist actually beleives that an absence of scientific knowledge necessitates God’s existence, I doubt few reasonable atheists actually believe that all theists actually hold this position. The God of the Gaps argument is used by the reasonable atheist to show the fallicious thinking in the many unreasonable theists that do take this position. They do not use it to attempt to prove that all religious belief is limiting to science, even though that may have been the intent of the inventor.

To demonstrate how something is done does not negate the possibility that a purposeful intelligence was behind the event in question. To demonstrate the mechanism by which some event transpires does not eliminate the possibility of a designer for the mechanism. Even if the mechanism is shown to be part of a chain of mechanisms, until the entire chain is explained, there is still an open question as to whether design by intelligence was at play.

Quite true. The God of the Gaps argument, properly used, attempts to show the flawed reasoning behind those theists that believe that being unable to demonstrate how something is done necessitates a puposeful intelligence.

The god of the gaps “fallacy” is an “in your face” kind of assertion on the part of some atheists to show that science can explain some hitherto inexplicable events, but that only shows they were inexplicable.

This position assumes that a theist must take the position that God’s existence is only demonstrated by gaps in knowledge, which is not the de facto position of reasonable theists.

Again, you attack only the unreasonable atheist. The reasonable atheist does not use the God of the gaps fallacy argument in this fashion. The reasonable atheist recognises that there are many reasonable theists that do not take this position.

The analogy doesn’t work precisely because theists do not propose “magical fairies” but an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. This proposal, contrary to the limitations of magical fairies, is that science should not stop until the complete explanation is, indeed, found. On the theist view, to discover why leaves turn colour in the fall, means we have uncovered a little more of the intelligent creativity of God. To assume the mechanism does not require intelligence to have designed it is merely another way of saying we had a false conception of God and had falsely held the belief that the limits of our knowledge were the limits of God’s knowledge and because God didn’t know better, he had to use magic. This just shows that our notion of God was not adequate to the task. It doesn’t prove God does not exist, but that the God of our conception does not.

On the contrary, many of us theists propose the equivilent of magical faries. The intent of the analogy was to show the falicious reasoning behind the theists that think this way. My intent was* not *to attack the notion of god and the proper christian scientist that you described above, which I wholeheartedly agree with.

The “gaps” argument works both ways. Science very likely has limits which are yet to be determined. To claim there are possible limits to the scientific method and to our complete understanding of “everything” is no reason to stop inquiry into where those limits actually are. It is the presumptuous and arbitrary demarcating of the boundaries of the gaps that ought to be denounced by scientists and theists alike.

Again, I completely agree here. It was not my intent to prove that scientific inquiry has no limits, or that there is no intelligence behind the workings of the universe. My intent was to show the flaws in the way of thinking of many theists who claim that an absence of a scientific explanation necessitates a divine influence.

 

[zro_x]

@ Buffalo

I looked up some things in the chatechism, and whenever it describes adam and eve, it only says “our first parents”, which can fit with polygenism. Where, if anywhere, does the dogma of the Catholic church describe only two original parents?

 

[buffalo]

@ Buffalo

I looked up some things in the chatechism, and whenever it describes adam and eve, it only says “our first parents”, which can fit with polygenism. Where, if anywhere, does the dogma of the Catholic church describe only two original parents?

1. 
   *]The Doctrine of Revelation Regarding Man or "Christian Anthropology"
   *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
   *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
   *] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
   *] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
   *] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
   *] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
   *] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
   *] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
   *] The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.)
   *] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
   *] Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.
   *] Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
   *] Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)
   *] In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. (De fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatus. D788 et seq.)
   *] Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.)

 

[buffalo]

Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 233. Who were the first man and woman?
A. The first man and woman were Adam and Eve.
**Q. 234. Are there any persons in the world who are not the descendants of Adam and Eve? **
A. There are no persons in the world now, and there never have been any, who are not the descendants of Adam and Eve, because the whole human race had but one origin.
Q. 235. Do not the differences in color, figure, etc., which we find in distinct races indicate a difference in first parents?
A. The differences in color, figure, etc., which we find in distinct races do not indicate a difference in first parents, for these differences have been brought about in the lapse of time by other causes, such as climate, habits, etc.
Q. 236. Were Adam and Eve innocent and holy when they came from the hand of God?
A. Adam and Eve were innocent and holy when they came from the hand of God.
Q. 237. What do we mean by saying Adam and Eve “were innocent” when they came from the hand of God?
A. When we say Adam and Eve “were innocent” when they came from the hand of God we mean they were in the state of original justice; that is, they were gifted with every virtue and free from every sin.
Q. 238. How was Adam’s body formed?
A. God formed Adam’s body out of the clay of the earth and then breathed into it a living soul.
Q. 239. How was Eve’s body formed?
A. Eve’s body was formed from a rib taken from Adam’s side during a deep sleep which God caused to come upon him.
Q. 240. Why did God make Eve from one of Adam’s ribs?
A. God made Eve from one of Adam’s ribs to show the close relationship existing between husband and wife in their marriage union which God then instituted.
Q. 241. Could man’s body be developed from the body of an inferior animal?
A. Man’s body could be developed from the body of an inferior animal if God so willed; but science does not prove that man’s body was thus formed, while revelation teaches that it was formed directly by God from the clay of the earth.
Q. 242. Could man’s soul and intelligence be formed by the development of animal life and instinct?
A. Man’s soul could not be formed by the development of animal instinct; for, being entirely spiritual, it must be created by God, and it is united to the body as soon as the body is prepared to receive it.

 

[zro_x]

Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 233. Who were the first man and woman?
A. The first man and woman were Adam and Eve.
**Q. 234. Are there any persons in the world who are not the descendants of Adam and Eve? **
A. There are no persons in the world now, and there never have been any, who are not the descendants of Adam and Eve, because the whole human race had but one origin.
Q. 235. Do not the differences in color, figure, etc., which we find in distinct races indicate a difference in first parents?
A. The differences in color, figure, etc., which we find in distinct races do not indicate a difference in first parents, for these differences have been brought about in the lapse of time by other causes, such as climate, habits, etc.
Q. 236. Were Adam and Eve innocent and holy when they came from the hand of God?
A. Adam and Eve were innocent and holy when they came from the hand of God.
Q. 237. What do we mean by saying Adam and Eve “were innocent” when they came from the hand of God?
A. When we say Adam and Eve “were innocent” when they came from the hand of God we mean they were in the state of original justice; that is, they were gifted with every virtue and free from every sin.
Q. 238. How was Adam’s body formed?
A. God formed Adam’s body out of the clay of the earth and then breathed into it a living soul.
Q. 239. How was Eve’s body formed?
A. Eve’s body was formed from a rib taken from Adam’s side during a deep sleep which God caused to come upon him.
Q. 240. Why did God make Eve from one of Adam’s ribs?
A. God made Eve from one of Adam’s ribs to show the close relationship existing between husband and wife in their marriage union which God then instituted.
Q. 241. Could man’s body be developed from the body of an inferior animal?
A. Man’s body could be developed from the body of an inferior animal if God so willed; but science does not prove that man’s body was thus formed, while revelation teaches that it was formed directly by God from the clay of the earth.
Q. 242. Could man’s soul and intelligence be formed by the development of animal life and instinct?
A. Man’s soul could not be formed by the development of animal instinct; for, being entirely spiritual, it must be created by God, and it is united to the body as soon as the body is prepared to receive it.

@ Buffalo

okay, so its obviously the teaching of the church, but is it infallible Dogma?

 

[buffalo]

1. Dogmas - This is De Fide - This is infallible
2. Doctrines - This is Sent. Certa - This is infallible but has not been formally elevated yet to the level of De Fide

 

[tonyrey]

okay, so its obviously the teaching of the church, but is it infallible Dogma?

The topic is Design not polygenism. Please do not sidetrack the issue. Start another thread if you are not interested in the OP…

 

[pig]

… As John Stuart Mill remarked, it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied rather than a pig satisfied…

Am I the only one that thinks this is a bit discriminatory?