Conference on Evolution

[edwest2]

Ed, your slandering is wrong to engage in, even for a Catholic. Most of us who are arguing for science are devout Catholics, not the fearsome atheists you imagine us to be.

From most who post here about this subject, I see strict adherence to science, but no adherence to the Word of God. There is nothing fearsome about an atheist. Only we, as Catholics, are called to evangelize the whole world - to proclaim the Gospel.

The Church does not stand outside of science. In fact, it must understand science to properly lead the faithful, so it is fitting, and true, when Pope Benedict tells the faithful: But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.

This is the message I am trying to get across in the midst of obfuscation and written misdirection.

I study the media and I work in the media. The current global trend is this: more atheism and subtle and not so subtle attacks on religion. Science, so-called, is being used as the defense for abominable practices and ideas.

Peace,
Ed

 

[mpartyka]

My objection is partially based on the evidence because it excludes other relevant material. This includes fossilized trees passing through many strata of rock and easily recognizable depictions of dinosaurs on historically recent pottery and metal. These things have never been adequately addressed here.

That’s because neither has any relevance to the genetic evidence which firmly establishes the evolutionary ties between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom, particularly the rest of the primates.

–Mike

 

[Orogeny]

This is the message I am trying to get across in the midst of obfuscation and written misdirection.

Then stop obfusticating and misdirecting and the message may work. You keep painting us as athiests, but it won’t work.

Peace

Tim

 

[mpartyka]

Oregeny is right, use raw papers where you can. Avoid both the evolutionary or creationist apologetics sites. Pure science sites void of philosophy are hard to find though.

Good point! Here’s one of my favorite papers (whose info happens to be reprinted in Relics of Eden):

Evolution of the NANOG pseudogene family in the human and chimpanzee genomes.

–Mike

 

[buffalo]

Then stop obfusticating and misdirecting and the message may work. You keep painting us as athiests, but it won’t work.

Peace

Tim

Maybe it would be better for Ed to say “the uniformed”.

 

[mpartyka]

…evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory. This is the message I am trying to get across in the midst of obfuscation and written misdirection.

But your statement is itself a work of “obfuscation and written misdirection” because it fails to explain just what is lacking in the theory. Proof of common descent as it pertains to humans and chimpanzees is not lacking (as the article I just cited demonstrates).

–Mike

 

[ricmat]

That’s because neither has any relevance to the genetic evidence which firmly establishes the evolutionary ties between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom, particularly the rest of the primates.

–Mike

Genetic evidence:

So if you have some actual DNA from e.g. Lucy, bring it forward. Then you could put forth a “suppose this gene changed like this… and then this gene changed thus and such…” At that point you would have a very limited theory of how Lucy became us (although proving it was done randomly might be a bit of a stretch).

Oh…you have no DNA?

What? Even if you had the DNA, you couldn’t construct such a path?

And even if you could construct such a path, you can’t actually make it happen in the lab?

Darn.

 

[mpartyka]

Genetic evidence:

So if you have some actual DNA from e.g. Lucy, bring it forward. Then you could put forth a “suppose this gene changed like this… and then this gene changed thus and such…” At that point you would have a very limited theory of how Lucy became us (although proving it was done randomly might be a bit of a stretch).

Oh…you have no DNA?

What? Even if you had the DNA, you couldn’t construct such a path?

Darn.

Feel free to read the article I cited. It doesn’t deal with Lucy, but it does deal with genetic similarities between humans and chimps that can’t be explained away by claims of “common design”.

–Mike

 

[ricmat]

Feel free to read the article I cited. It doesn’t deal with Lucy, but it does deal with genetic similarities between humans and chimps that can’t be explained away by claims of “common design”.

–Mike

I’m not claiming common design, although if I knew more about it, I might claim it at some point in the future.

What I do claim is that the notion that evolution by [random mutations] + natural selection is not as solid-as-a-rock (or just-as-good-as-gravity) and is a vast overstatement. As I’ve stated many times, I actually think that evolution works at a micro-level, but needs some help to make changes happen fast enough.

I don’t remember EXACTLY where you stand on this, but most of those who believe in “random only” evolution “know” with absolute certainty that evolution did it all somehow. But it seems to me that the “somehow” part leaves open the door such that it is unreasonable to be absolutely certain about it.

You seem more reasonable than a lot of those guys.

 

[mpartyka]

I’m not claiming common design, although if I knew more about it, I might claim it at some point in the future.

What I do claim is that the notion that evolution by [random mutations] + natural selection is not as solid-as-a-rock (or just-as-good-as-gravity) and is a vast overstatement. As I’ve stated many times, I actually think that evolution works at a micro-level, but needs some help to make changes happen fast enough.

I don’t remember EXACTLY where you stand on this, but most of those who believe in “random only” evolution “know” with absolute certainty that evolution did it all somehow. But it seems to me that the “somehow” part leaves open the door such that it is unreasonable to be absolutely certain about it.

You seem more reasonable than a lot of those guys.

Thanks. It’s probably because my focus isn’t on evolution as a whole – the theories of which are still fluctuating as new information is teased from all sorts of genomes – but on the isolated aspect of common descent, particularly the descent of humans and chimpanzees from a common ancestor species. My personal feeling is that 90% of the people who object to “evolution” are actually objecting to common descent. Even “progressive creationist” organizations like Reasons to Believe have no problem with accepting evolution so long as humanity is excluded from the tree (or web) of life. (It would be interesting to know what percentage of intelligent design advocates deny common descent as it pertains to humanity.)

–Mike

 

[buffalo]

Thanks. It’s probably because my focus isn’t on evolution as a whole – the theories of which are still fluctuating as new information is teased from all sorts of genomes – but on the isolated aspect of common descent, particularly the descent of humans and chimpanzees from a common ancestor species. My personal feeling is that 90% of the people who object to “evolution” are actually objecting to common descent. Even “progressive creationist” organizations like Reasons to Believe have no problem with accepting evolution so long as humanity is excluded from the tree (or web) of life. (It would be interesting to know what percentage of intelligent design advocates deny common descent as it pertains to humanity.)

–Mike

The Origin of Man is more my concern.

 

[ricmat]

Thanks. It’s probably because my focus isn’t on evolution as a whole – the theories of which are still fluctuating as new information is teased from all sorts of genomes – but on the isolated aspect of common descent, particularly the descent of humans and chimpanzees from a common ancestor species. My personal feeling is that 90% of the people who object to “evolution” are actually objecting to common descent. Even “progressive creationist” organizations like Reasons to Believe have no problem with accepting evolution so long as humanity is excluded from the tree (or web) of life. (It would be interesting to know what percentage of intelligent design advocates deny common descent as it pertains to humanity.)

–Mike

Common descent really isn’t an important item for me. After all, both chimpanzees, humans, and…uh…amoebas are all composed of hydrogen, carbon, etc. Big deal. It’s a meaningless “commonality” so far as I’m concerned.

I can accept (although I’m not certain about it , and there are also other things I can accept ) that God created proto-humans (as in “not fully human”) with virtually all the physical characteristics of humanity. But lacking that thing called image and likeness of God.

I do think that God “designed” the universe and man. And I use the word designed as in “planned”, meaning “not random”.

 

[StAnastasia]

The Church does not stand outside of science. In fact, it must understand science to properly lead the faithful…Peace,Ed

Precisely – that’s why the conference in Rome invited some of the leading people in evolutionary biology.

 

[edwest2]

I am skeptical of the claims made for evolutionary biology.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

That’s because neither has any relevance to the genetic evidence which firmly establishes the evolutionary ties between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom, particularly the rest of the primates.

–Mike

This is called argument from insistence. I am skeptical of the claims. As Pope John Paul II brought up, it does not explain the ontological leap to human beings.

Science is incomplete. It cannot offer the whole, complete answer. Only Divine Revelation can provide the full truth.

Peace,
Ed

 

[mpartyka]

As Pope John Paul II brought up, it does not explain the ontological leap to human beings.

But it doesn’t have to, does it? My understanding of the official Catholic position is, “So long as you restrict yourself to speaking of man’s biological origins, the theory of evolution is acceptable.” Common descent speaks only to biology, which should, I would think, make its acceptance tolerable to persons seeking to adhere to the offical Catholic position.

–Mike

 

[ricmat]

But it doesn’t have to, does it? My understanding of the official Catholic position is, “So long as you restrict yourself to speaking of man’s biological origins, the theory of evolution is acceptable.” Common descent speaks only to biology, which should, I would think, make its acceptance tolerable to persons seeking to adhere to the offical Catholic position.

–Mike

“Theory of Evolution” unfortunately is not well defined, so everyone seems to have their own spin on it. So I suppose you could say that when looking at the details, each person has their own personal theory of evolution.

I posted the item below in quite a few threads in the past, but I’ll post it here again for convenience:

---

Quote directly from the US Catholic Catechism for Adults - page 60 (2007):

“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.”

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.

---

So even those personal theories which speak only to biology can be forbidden if they are strictly materialistic - which it seems is common viewpoint these days.

 

[StAnastasia]

TScience is incomplete.

Good. I think most biologists would agree with you.

 

[mpartyka]

Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution.

Well, sure, in the sense that Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of nuclear physics, too. No Catholic has to believe that atoms are comprised of subatomic particles.

So even those personal theories which speak only to biology can be forbidden if they are strictly materialistic.

Well, what about common descent? Would you personally say that the theory of common descent, which as it pertains to humans and chimps says that both species are the biological descendancts of a common ancestor species, is forbidden under these guidelines, or does it merely fall into the “can be rejected” bucket (as in the example of nuclear physics)?

–Mike

 

[StAnastasia]

Well, sure, in the sense that Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of nuclear physics, too. No Catholic has to believe that atoms are comprised of subatomic particles.–Mike

Catholics are free to reject the theory of gravity, as well.