Creation or Evolution. What do you believe?

[bengal_fan]

oolon,
i am a guest here also as i am not catholic so i understand. question for you, do you discount everything that a creation scientist says? this is not accusing you i am just curious. do you think their credentials are non-existant? have you ever spoken with one in person. i don’t necessarily agree with everything that Answers in Genesis or Ken Ham say, but he has studied. no maybe it was from his own point of view but evolutionists (not all) do the same thing. just a question.

also, has anyone heard of the creation museum they are building? it is in florence, ky. i know this alone makes it suspect being in kentucky and all, but is actually only about 15-20min. from downtown cincinnati, oh.

 

[fogie]

This is a great topic with many great points being made. I am a chemical engineer who teaches 8th grade religious education. There is a real problem with our public school kids being taught that the theory of evolotion proves the bible, and therefore, Christianity, wrong.

My guess is that the teachers get their facts from the movie “The Monkey Trial”.

A couple points from a person of science without an axe to grind.

Talk of creation in six literal days comes off as unscientific. That is just how it is viewed.

On the reverse, conversations I’ve had with supposed experts cannot answer some basic concerns about the group of evolution believers called macro-evolutionists. Even with all the planets that could exist, what is the probability of life being created. Carl Sagan said it was a sure thing and used some very unscientific experiments as proof. Most scientists give the value as very low now. When asked how creatures that reproduce sexually could have evolved, they have little to say. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. When a life form “evolved” from, let’s say, 22 pairs, there had to be two of them evolving at once. If there is only two, how do you account for the significant gene variation, which can’t be attributed to mutations and non-disjunction. If the possibility of a creature being viable as the first mutation from 22 to 23 pairs occurs, the chance of that happening twice is extremely remote.

From the evolutionist, they will always end up with saying the probability is extremely small, but it must have happened because “here we are”. This doesn’t impress either.

We know evolution occurs, although several of the studies already mentioned have been discredited. Saying that you can extrapolate this activity to the creation of all species, including humans is unscientific.

Most importantly, in ten bullet points or less (I address the MTV generation), what do I tell my eigth graders?

Pax Christi

 

[Meatros]

Chris W:

Indeed I show my hand. I lay my cards on the table face up. I am not trying to trick someone into thinking I am a scientist. Fortunately, one does not have to be a scientist to see the limitations of evolution.

Well, to be fair, quite often what is perceived as limitations are often misunderstandings.

In any event, what are these ‘limitations’ you speak of?
Chris W:

Thanks for the explanation. I regret that my choice of words seems to have distracted you from responding to the point of my post.

What didn’t I respond to?
Chris W:

What I am referring to is Pasteur’s Law, which denys the possibility of spontaneous generation.

Where to begin? First, Pasteur was talking about fully formed comlpex organisms, not simple celled organisms. To confuse the two is to not do justice to either one (and unfortunately Creationist usually confuse the two). Second, abiogenesis/biogenesis has nothing to do with the validity of evolution. Let’s assume you are correct-that life can not come from non life.

So what? How does that escape the fact that living things evolve?
Chris W:

Pasteur’s Law still stands if I am not mistaken.

You are mistaken in assuming it has any relevance to evolution.
Chris W:

Atheistic evolution, no matter how far back people try to date the beginning, relies ultimately on spontaneous generation doesn’t it?

No, as I explained above. In two ways it does not: First, evolution does not depend on abiogenesis in order to be valid. Second, abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation.
Chris W:

Non-living matter somehow became living matter. PhilVaz has since posted that he recognizes the hand of God in this matter, so my assumption about him was wrong. I understood that he was approaching the matter from an atheistic evolutionary approach.

It seems like to me that you are compounding science with a religious philosophy. As has been said before, the two need not be applied together.
Chris W:

So I still maintain the following conclusion, although revised to include the word “athiestic”: The *atheistic *evolutionist must make the following statement: “I believe, by faith, contrary to current scientific law, that evolution somehow occurred.”

And you would still be wrong. Abiogenesis is not impossible, here is a good article: talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

Additionally, here’s an article dealing specifically with the misconception you have about abiogenesis: talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html

A recurring theme in antievolution literature is that if science cannot account for the origin of life, evolution is false, and that “spontaneous generation” was disproven, so therefore evolution is false. This syllogism fails, because evolution (that is, common descent and transmutation of species) occurs whether or not life arose by chance, law or design, but there is another more insidious mistake here. It is not true that “spontaneous generation” has been ruled out in all cases by science; the claims disproven were more restricted than that.

 

[Meatros]

Well it appears as though the rest of my post was deleted due to a microsoft bug.

in any event, I’d suggest reading the link I provided as it deals with many of the misconceptions revolving around sponaneous generation.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

Hi bengal_fan

bengal_fan:

question for you, do you discount everything that a creation scientist says?

Pretty much. But not out of hand, merely that I’m sorry to say that I’ve seen it all before. ‘Evolutionists’ are sometimes accused of constantly revising what they say (in the light of new evidence). The thing with creationists is that they never seem to change. The same hoary old arguments keep getting dragged out, no matter how often they are refuted. That’s why, and why it’s possible for, the newsgroup TalkOrigins to have a vast FAQs website offering the mainstream scientific answers to creationist claims… and why we ‘evolutionists’ point people there so much!

So I take anything a creation scientist says with a bigger pinch of salt than I would more reputable sources. They are demonstrably liars, twisters and misinformation-mongers, so beware.

And because I’ve encountered the claims so often, I have already looked into them, and found them sorely wanting.

So I await the day when something new turns up. Then I’ll research it. I don’t take anyone’s word for things, scientist or pseudoscientist. The thing about science is that you don’t have to. You can check it for yourself.

do you think their credentials are non-existant?

They are rarely relevant. ‘Dr’ Kent Hovind is a prime example; many others are hydraulics engineers etc. See here about appropriateness of qualifications.

have you ever spoken with one in person.

Yes, briefly, to Ken Ham. But the circumstances were not exactly conducive to cornering the little bugger .

i don’t necessarily agree with everything that Answers in Genesis or Ken Ham say,

I should hope not

but he has studied.

Yeah, he was a science teacher in Australia, I gather. But no matter how highly and relevantly qualified someone is, they can still talk bollocks (as we English say). As the link above says:

“A person’s qualifications are important to consider, but they are not the only thing. The ultimate authority for arguments about the world is the world itself. If the argument is logical and is based on reliable real-world data (for example, if it contains verifiable data or has reliable references), then the argument has authority regardless of who is giving it.”

Like me, for instance. All I’ve got is A Level biology and chemistry. But I know more biology than most creationists. An argument is only as good as the evidence you’ve got to support it.

Cheers, Oolon

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

Chris W:

For clarification, I will not argue against all kinds of evolutionary processes. What I will defend is the understanding that evolution cannot answer how life came from non-living matter.

Evolution does not seek to answer that. As I’m sure I must have said before here, as far as I’m concerned, god(s) may have created the first replicators. Evolution is about what happened after that.

Not that there aren’t plenty of scientific ideas as to how life got going, but it’s still early days. But beware gods of the gaps! They have a habit of evaporating!

Cheers, Oolon

 

[buffalo]

Why Human Evolution Can Never Be Part of the Deposit of Faith

users2.ev1.net/~origins/pdf/whyhumev.pdf

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Oolon Colluphid:

Hi bengal_fan

They are rarely relevant. ‘Dr’ Kent Hovind is a prime example; many others are hydraulics engineers etc. See here about appropriateness of qualifications.

Cheers, Oolon

You forgot Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Baugh, PhD.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

buffalo:

Why Human Evolution Can Never Be Part of the Deposit of Faith

users2.ev1.net/~origins/pdf/whyhumev.pdf

Pah! As I was just saying, it’s the same old guff warmed over, this time with a Catholic spin.

It breaks down into three bits: a theological argument (which is your problem, not science’s), a claim that natural science cannot deal with historical processes (there goes cosmology, geology, geophysics…) and stuff about untestability, plus the usual references to Haeckel etc.

Honestly, Catholics, I’d expected better from you!

Say, Buffalo, maybe you’d like to pick a particularly persuasive bit of all that and run it past us all?

 

[bengal_fan]

“Yes, briefly, to Ken Ham. But the circumstances were not exactly conducive to cornering the little bugger .” -oolon

do you really thing you would be able to corner him? i have met him many times, and while not always agreeing with him, i have found him to be a very honest and sincere individual. he is definitely operating from a base in his own beliefs but so are you (and me for that matter) which never adds up to good science. objectivity seems impossible in this situation. my point is, do you not think he has heard every argument you could present to him as well? and don’t you think he has a reply to anything you could ask? i have seen him debate a number of biologists, geologists and the like and he has yet to waiver in his beliefs or his science (i will not call it a psuedo-science as i feel that is bringing opinions into it, they do experiment and research and use the scientific method so i will call them scientists). my other point is, they do have a legitimate argument (as small as you or i might think it to be) and people should not be so brash as to think they are still carrying around the same tired old things. maybe they are still carrying them around because they have not been answered to a number of people’s satisfaction.

 

[Meatros]

bengal_fan:

(i will not call it a psuedo-science as i feel that is bringing opinions into it, they do experiment and research and use the scientific method so i will call them scientists).

This caught my attention: What experiments and research do ‘creation’ scientists use? Additionally why do you say they use the scientific method-especially considering the fact that what they proclaim as truth is neither testable, nor potentially falsifiable, nor does it explain the evidence, and nor is it parsimonous (sp?)?

 

[buffalo]

Oolon Colluphid:

Pah!
Say, Buffalo, maybe you’d like to pick a particularly persuasive bit of all that and run it past us all?

Which of the three give you problems?

 

[Colossus]

This discussion has been very helpful in furthering my understanding of Evolution vs. Creation. From my own view it seems that Evolution has been shown to occur much more in animals, insects etc… But not as much in Man. I’m aware that there are claims that fossils of Prehistoric Men (I’m not sure of the correct term that is being used now ) have been found, but have any been proven to be true? Is the so-called “Missing Link” something that needs to be found in order to prove that Modern Man evolved from a Neanderthal Cave Man or Cro-Magnons? I noticed that there is a difference between the two can this be explained?

I’m also a little confused as to how people can believe in both Creation and Evolution. I’ll admit it does make sense to see how animals and insects can evolve within a certain understanding, but it’s something else altogether to believe that Man evolved from a Cell and grew to what we are today.

If Man did evolve and people want to believe in both Creation and Evolution and what point did God decide to give man a Soul? Did our Souls evolve along with our physical forms? Did Cro-Magnon have a soul? If Mankind’s Souls have existed from the beginning, as the Bible would suggest then does that mean that in Man’s early stage of evolution when man was probably not even a man (by today’s standards) did the soul of that man resemble what it currently was or something else?

These are just a few concerns I have about believing in Creation and also believing that Man evolved too.

 

[buffalo]

Science only deals with things that can be observed and readily repeated. Since evolution cannot be recreated by experiment, it will always be a theory.

Science therefore cannot prove or disprove a singular miracle.

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0404_brass_tacks.asp

Catholic Catechism

**159 **Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”

 

[Chris_W]

Meatros - Interesting links. I can see that there are indeed theories about how life could possibly have begun (in the opinion of some). However, these do remain theories, correct? They are inetersting, but unfortunately not pursuasive, and certainly not demonstrable. On the other hand, it would be equally difficult to disprove.

So it seems, as many people have said, that science cannot difinitively answer the question, though some hope someday it will. I guess if we only consider scientific evidence we should all be agnostics. (Fortunately there are other kinds of evidence that can be considered).

Oolon & Meatros - I find it interesting that I am questioned for tying athiestic evolution to the issue of how non-living matter became living matter. I keep hearing the two are irrelevent, and that evolution does not seek to answer the question. Then why do evolutionists always seem to seek to discredit theism? It seems you should merely be concerned with finding the answer.

I am guessing you might respond that Creationists also seek to convince atheists of our understanding. This is true, but the motivation is transparent…concern for the salvation of souls. What is your motivation?

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Colossus:

This discussion has been very helpful in furthering my understanding of Evolution vs. Creation. From my own view it seems that Evolution has been shown to occur much more in animals, insects etc… But not as much in Man. I’m aware that there are claims that fossils of Prehistoric Men (I’m not sure of the correct term that is being used now ) have been found, but have any been proven to be true? Is the so-called “Missing Link” something that needs to be found in order to prove that Modern Man evolved from a Neanderthal Cave Man or Cro-Magnons? I noticed that there is a difference between the two can this be explained?

This would be a false dichotomy. Humans *are *animals, right down to those lovely little animal synapomorphies. Yay Animalia monophyly!

On a more serious note, though, hominid evolution is dreadfully boring. You should take up avian phylogenetics.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[JimO]

Quote by Oolon Colluphid: “Honestly, Catholics, I’d expected better from you!”

This statement presumes that the “Catholics” you address are trained scientists. I have read your posts and, sadly, this comes across to me as another of your many smug, cynical one-liners. This entire discussion is a classic example of an atheist (or agnostic) arguing science with people of faith. Being a geologist, I have experienced many discussions over the years with colleagues who can’t seem to reconcile the fact that I am a scientist and a Catholic Christian. Many of these discussions were cordial and beneficial. However, they all seem to come down to one basic issue, and that is, are science and faith compatible? My atheistic colleagues look for scientific proof of the tenets of faith and many of my Christian colleagues seek to shore up their faith with science. Unfortunately, often neither accomplish their goals. Taking the subject of this thread as an example. I have studied much in evolutionary theory and the data are not compatible with a literal interpretation of the creation narratives (they were not intended for that purpose, but that is another issue). Conversely, the fossil record has enormous gaps that are filled by what I call “faith in the passage of time.” I do not say that macroevolution has not occurred, but that the data gaps to support this in the fossil record are great indeed.

However, even if the entire evolutionary theory were proven beyond doubt, the debate would not end, and the Catholic Church recognizes this by not taking an absolute position on physical evolution (BTW, the Pope is only infallible on matters of faith and morals, not math and science). What the Church teaches and I hold to is that the immortal human soul is created and can not evolve. A scientific explanation of how the bodies of Adam and Eve were created is not the point of the creation narratives. Their creation in the image and likeness of God and their relationship, as creatures, to God, the Creator, is the point.

To all those who have read Oolon Colluphid’s posts and may have doubts, I would like to say the following:

The recognition of an immortal soul is a matter of faith and not science. The discussion of physical evidence of evolution is a discussion of science and not faith. The atheist starts from a true materialistic position, in that he/she refuses to recognize anything that can not be explained by math/science. These same folks typically reject faith as being “a crutch” or “wishful thinking” based on a fear of death and nonexistence. That’s what this boils down to. The creation/evolution debate is a great trap for the atheist to set for the person of faith, particularly those who hold a literal view of the Scriptures. Don’t take the bait. Unless there is a presumption that God exists or that we have a spiritual existence, the final word in this debate is left with the atheist.

However, if we back the creation clock up a few billion more years (time is irrelevent to God) to the “Big Bang” the real question comes down to this: Every person excepts something on faith with absolutely no “material” evidence to support it - 1) Matter/energy have existed without a beginning, 2) Matter/energy came from nothing, or 3) Matter/energy were created by God. Most atheists have more faith in 1) or 2) or, incredibly, more faith in the future possibility that 1) or 2) will be proven or explained. I would argue that the person of faith does not accept 3) on “blind” faith, but that the body of physical evidence of God’s existence is enormous. To refute this, the atheist simply refuses to accept the evidence, convenient. Sadly, these types of discussions do little to stir faith in an atheist, unless that person is open to the Holy Spirit. Don’t stop trying, but don’t get discouraged.

I hope this helps somebody.

Blessings and Peace

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Meatros - Interesting links. I can see that there are indeed theories about how life could possibly have begun (in the opinion of some). However, these do remain theories, correct? They are inetersting, but unfortunately not pursuasive, and certainly not demonstrable. On the other hand, it would be equally difficult to disprove.

So it seems, as many people have said, that science cannot difinitively answer the question, though some hope someday it will. I guess if we only consider scientific evidence we should all be agnostics. (Fortunately there are other kinds of evidence that can be considered).

Oolon & Meatros - I find it interesting that I am questioned for tying athiestic evolution to the issue of how non-living matter became living matter. I keep hearing the two are irrelevent, and that evolution does not seek to answer the question. Then why do evolutionists always seem to seek to discredit theism? It seems you should merely be concerned with finding the answer.

I am guessing you might respond that Creationists also seek to convince atheists of our understanding. This is true, but the motivation is transparent…concern for the salvation of souls. What is your motivation?

As well you should be questioned for conflating the origin of life and the evolution thereof. Evolution is a strictly biotic process and thus takes place after life has arisen. Evolutionary biology would be as valid if God created life, it arose by abiogenesis, or the Energizer Bunny did, since the origin thereof is irrelevant to the factuality of the theory. At best it is misguided to try and conflate the two, at worst, disingenuous.

I will not speak for the motivation of Oolon and Meatros as those who accept the validity of evolutionary biology on the basis of the empirical data, but I can speak for my own reasoning for debating creationists. Creationism lacks any empirical data to support it and does not meet the minimum philosophical and methodological requirements of science. Creationism is in essence an attempt to define nature, not describe it. That, at best, is philosophy, but I will not sully the name of that endeavor by placing Creationism within its provenance. When creationism is presented as scientific reality, with empirical data to support it, offered as a viable alternative to evolutionary biology, and not the faith-based speculation that it is, I feel compelled to defend science from charlatans.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

JimO:

Quote by Oolon Colluphid: “Honestly, Catholics, I’d expected better from you!”

This statement presumes that the “Catholics” you address are trained scientists. I have read your posts and, sadly, this comes across to me as another of your many smug, cynical one-liners. This entire discussion is a classic example of an atheist (or agnostic) arguing science with people of faith.

Why should people who do not understand science attempt to debate scientific questions? I find it most useful if people do not pontificate on things they know not the first thing about. This, for instance, is why you shall never see me lecturing anyone on, say, optics.

Conversely, the fossil record has enormous gaps that are filled by what I call “faith in the passage of time.” I do not say that macroevolution has not occurred, but that the data gaps to support this in the fossil record are great indeed.

What gaps would these be?

However, even if the entire evolutionary theory were proven beyond doubt, the debate would not end

Since evolutionary biology for all intents and purposes has been proven beyond doubt (right down to use in courts, fancy that), it seems rather odd that you should phrase its validity as an “if” question. You are, however, spot on about the debate not ending no matter how much evidence is accrued. Creationists have a deeply ingrained belief system they are defending from imagined persecution and no amount of pesky data is likely to convince them that they are wrong.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

I don’t think most the Catholics here have “imagined persecution”. Your exasperation is understandable given your faith in evolution as fact and you confront a crowd who is curious and not yet committed to evolution by faith. Again Newtonian gravity got repealed, who knows what’s next? Personally I do not see evolution at odds with Catholicism. I see in this thread a lot of curious Catholics and some grumpy naturists who’ve been hangin with protestants a wee bit too long. Sorry tweaking noses gently here.

I dropped by your site to read the Bombadier beetle theory to satisfy my curiosity regarding spiders and spinarets. It read a bit like a flight of fancy–a well, this could have happened this way . . . This is so far from what I consider evidence that I think there is a lot of room for work in evolution. The current state of evolution claims are so very bold and of such large scope I have to wonder if there are not other mechanisms involved in the creation of complex structures that we have yet to discover.

I liked Jim’s point that we walk by faith. Ultimately, Christ calls us to faith in Him. Evolution is really not a consequence to faith. Science may inductively point to faith, but proof is in the second coming, I think.

I would like to hear of evolution theories that coexist with Adam, for our theology definately includes Adam as first ensouled and divinely created. I admit I have a great curiosity here. All of evolution could have indeed passed in six days from God’s perspective who is the Master of time and space. Evolution paints a physical progression; mankind is on a spiritual progression; evolution points toward God. This fallen world is struggling and that’s a fact.

The intersection of God and time, and evolution and time is a very curious area of reality.

peace