Creation or Evolution

[anthony022071]

Yep. That’s what macroevolution is. Microevolution is variation within a species. Macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa.

No,it isn’t. Macro-evolution involves much more than a new category of organisms. Any new sub-species is a new taxon.

Yep. Polyploidy is an example of very rapid macroevolution.

No,it isn’t. It is just extra sets of the parents’ genetic information.

Reproductive isolation is macroevolution.

No,it isn’t. Reproductive isolation never leads anything more than speciation within the family.

When two populations no longer freely interbreed, they will increasingly diverge, and eventually be unable to interbreed.

Unable to interbreed is one thing,total genetic isolation is another.
Divergence between two populations never leads to total incompatibility.

Whether they are humans or chimpanzees, they are still hominoids.

Hominoids that are totally incapable of interbreeding and never were capable of interbreeding. No common descent.

Not quite yet.

Not ever.

Of course we do have others, like the drosophila population noted by Dobzhanski to have evolved into two reproductively isolated species.

There is still genetic compatibility between the flies.

Most speciation is gradual over thousands of years. The apple/hawthorn flies are just an example of more rapid speciation.

Rapid speciation or no,the flies are still just flies,so there is no macro-evolution there.

And chimps and humans will always continue to be primates.

And “primate” will always be just a category with nothing to do with common descent.

You’ve conflated ontological naturalism with methodological naturalism.

No,I’m using a dictionary definition.

You might want to learn the difference.

There is no essential difference. Naturalism is the same principle,whether in philosophy or when put into scientific practice.

No, Einstein was a deist, who professed belief in the God of Spinoza.

Einstein advocted a cosmic religiosity in his book “Mein Weltbild”. Spinoza was definitely a pantheist.

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” - Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas (Einstein’s secretary) and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press.

The ICR, for example, did what you did; they just redefined “macroevolution” to exclude any sort of evolution that they felt they couldn’t deny.

I didn’t redefine macro-evolution,but you try to.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

Here, you are equating “human” with “descendant of Adam.” And it might be true. Adam might have been the first species of Homo.

Remember, that ADAM Adamah, means made of earth (see the links before such as
thehope.org/olamadam.htm
and does not at all HAVE TO be this one man.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Yep. That’s what macroevolution is. Microevolution is variation within a species. Macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa.

No,it isn’t.

Yep. That’s what it means. If you don’t want to use terms as scientists do, then you’ll have a very difficult time talking about science.

Barbarian observes:
Yep. Polyploidy is an example of very rapid macroevolution.

No,it isn’t.

Of course it is. Remember, macroevolution means reproductive isolation from the older population.

It is just extra sets of the parents’ genetic information.

Gene duplication is always an increase in information. Would you like to see the numbers?

Barbarian observes:
Reproductive isolation is macroevolution.

No,it isn’t. Reproductive isolation never leads anything more than speciation within the family.

Even “scientific creationists” admit that new families evolve. They draw the line there, though. But they can’t show that there’s any barrier beyond that level. And as the Pope says, the fact that all organisms are genetically related makes common descent virtually certain.

Barbarian observes:
When two populations no longer freely interbreed, they will increasingly diverge, and eventually be unable to interbreed.
Unable to interbreed is one thing,total genetic isolation is another.

Divergence between two populations never leads to total incompatibility.

O. lamarckania and O. gigas can no longer reproduce at all. Reality trumps anyone’s beliefs.

(arguments that new species of flies are still flies)

Barbarian observes:
Whether they are humans or chimpanzees, they are still hominoids.

Hominoids that are totally incapable of interbreeding and never were capable of interbreeding. No common descent.

That’s been verified in a very interesting way. You see, humans have 46 chromosomes and other apes have 48. This was sort of a problem for common descent. Scientists therefore theorized that the line that led to humans must have had a chromosome fusion in which two chromosomes fused together (such fusions have been observed). When it became possible to analyze chromosomes, it was then found that the #2 human chromosome is almost exactly like two chimpanzee chromosomes, right down to the remnants of telomeres and a no-longer-functional centromere precisely where it would be if there was a fusion. That nails it.

Of course we do have others, like the drosophila population noted by Dobzhanski to have evolved into two reproductively isolated species.

There is still genetic compatibility between the flies.

No. In fact, they are totally isolated now, since hybridization produces sterile individuals, much as hybridization between horses and donkey’s produce sterile mules.

Barbarian observes:
Most speciation is gradual over thousands of years. The apple/hawthorn flies are just an example of more rapid speciation.

Rapid speciation or no,the flies are still just flies,so there is no macro-evolution there.

And chimps and humans are still primates. You see, flies and primates are the same level of taxa. So it’s a rather large amount of macroevolution.

Barbarian observes:
You’ve conflated ontological naturalism with methodological naturalism.

No,I’m using a dictionary definition.

Maybe you need a new dictionary:

**Many modern philosophers of science use the terms methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism to refer to the methodological assumption that observable effects in nature are best explainable only by natural causes. In other words, methodological naturalism is the view that the scientific method (hypothesize, predict, test, and repeat) is the only effective way to investigate reality. Any method of inquiry or investigation or any procedure for gaining knowledge that limits itself to natural, physical, and material approaches and explanations can be described as naturalistic.

Methodological naturalism can be contrasted with the ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism, which refers to the metaphysical belief that the natural world (including the universe) is all that exists and, therefore, nothing supernatural exists.**
Wikipedia

You can get a more detailed and rigorous explanation here:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/

There is no essential difference.

Ontological naturalism says that nature is all there is. Methodological naturalism is a system that is unable to say whether or not nature is all there is.

If you don’t see a huge difference between these two, I believe we’ve found the source of your difficulties.

Barbarian obeserves:
No, Einstein was a deist, who professed belief in the God of Spinoza.

Einstein advocted a cosmic religiosity in his book “Mein Weltbild”. Spinoza was definitely a pantheist.

Let’s take a look. Einstein, when asked if he was a Spinozaist:

**I can’t answer with a simple yes or no. I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza’s pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things. **
Letter 1944

Barbarian observes:
The ICR, for example, did what you did; they just redefined “macroevolution” to exclude any sort of evolution that they felt they couldn’t deny.

I didn’t redefine macro-evolution,but you try to.

Let’s take a look…

**Speciation and Macroevolution

19 and 22 March, 1999

Recall from our discussion of microevolution that no population can satisfy all five conditions of genetic (Hardy-Weinberg) equilibrium. This simply means that all populations are evolving - changing genetic makeup over time. As long as two populations are able to exchange genetic information (interbreed), they will maintain similar genetic characteristics. If these two populations lose the ability to interbreed, perhaps because of geographic isolation, then their genetic makeup continues to change over time, but now the two populations are free to change in different ways. If the isolation persists for a long enough time, then the two populations may become different enough to become separate species.

Mayr’s definition of species (page 240) focuses on the element of reproductive isolation - the inability of individuals from separate species to reproduce. This isolation may be prezygotic (coming into play before fertilization) in one of five basic ways: temporal (incompatible reproductive schedules), ecological (two species that are best suited for differing microenvironments), behavioral (incompatible mating rituals) or mechanical (incompatible reproductive organs), or gametic (incompatible sperm and eggs). Postzygotic isolation refers to the inability of a zygote resulting from cross-species fertilization to develop into a viable organism. Note that viable organisms must be able to reproduce - mules are an example of postzygotic isolation even though they are able to successfully complete development.**
faculty.evansville.edu/be6/b100/19March.html

Imagine that.

 

[The_Barbarian]

No way this applies to the real world.

Ed, it is the real world. In the real world, Darwin attributed the origin of life to God, the church teaches that evolution is consistent with it’s teachings, and the Pope says that common descent is “virtually certain.”

No one cares about what Darwin believes.

The fact that he attributed the origin of life to God is significant if someone argues that evolution is atheistic.

This is right out of the atheist (not you) playbook.

In a world where acknowledgment of God as Creator is atheistic, I suppose. But not in the real one.

Evolution means no God.

No. Evolution is just the way God did it. Do you honestly think the Pope is promoting atheism?

Go to any atheist or Dawkins worship site if you want confirmation.

Dawkins freely admits that evolution does not disprove God.

And why would any scientist who has the facts about evolution care one bit what the Church thinks about this subject?

Some of us, like Ayala and Miller are devout Roman Catholics.

Why? Care to tell everyone here? Because it has to do with pushing an ideology.

Rather, it is in convincing Catholics not to fall into the error of creationism, and to accept the Church’s teaching on evolution.

Anyone who says that evolution is all about atheism is at odds with the magesterium of the Church.

 

[wildleafblower]

Here in this thread it seems that evolutionists are scientists, smart, non-believers and bad guys, while creationists are non-scientists, believers, dumb and bad guys.

Fr Gregor Mendel was a scientist, clever, a believer and a good guy.

The importance of Charles Darwin has been stressed in this thread, but not the relevance of Mendel.

Could it be argued that Fr Gregor Mendel OSA also contributed very much to our understanding of science, with his insights into heredity? His patient experimental work and insights led to the science of genetics and many advances in modern science such as the genome projects.

Would it be true to say that he disagreed with Darwin and in the 1940s a synthesis of the work of both Darwin and Mendel developed.

Hi Noel

I’m glad you brought up this topic about Gregor Mendel. This weekend I visited old friends at their lake house in the mountains and watched their son drive in the Sprint Car races. (My ears are still buzzing! And my eyes are wide awake after reading some of the messages posted to this topic Creation or Evolution.) Yesterday, on my way out of town, I did manage to take the time to rummage through a quaint, antique bookstore. As a collector of rare science books with always hope of finding a treasure, I was fortunate to have purchased for $1.50 a book in mint condition, **Principles of GENETICS **by Edmund W. Sinnott (Professor of Botany, Columbia University) and L.C. Dunn (Professor of Zoology, Columbia University), Third Edition, Thirteenth Impression, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York and London, 1939. The book is dedicated as noted inside “TO The WORK OF GREGOR MENDEL FOR NEARLY FORTY YEARS A STIMULUS AND GUIDE TO STUDENTS OF HEREDITY”. A picture foldout of 20 inches in black and white of “Frontispiece.—Bridges’s maps of the chromosomes of the salivary glad cells of Drosophila melanogaster (as of 1936) compared with partial genetic maps showing the locations of some of the imporant gene-loci; see text, page 164, (Courtesy of C. B. Bridges and the Journal of Heredity.). The index of the book referrences to more than a few pages on Mutation, Mutation theory, and Darwin. I’ll be reading this later today and share what I’ve learned though realizing the date of the book.

We should remember Charles Darwin considered himself to be agnostic later in life as I’ve already shown evidence of such on another topic. There is a good chance that I may have located a rare book of his. I love to treasure hunt.

P.S. Ricmat, you really should consider reading the book, Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus by John Gray. Unless you’re hell bent not to.

 

[edwest2]

Ed, it is the real world. In the real world, Darwin attributed the origin of life to God, the church teaches that evolution is consistent with it’s teachings, and the Pope says that common descent is “virtually certain.”

The fact that he attributed the origin of life to God is significant if someone argues that evolution is atheistic.

In a world where acknowledgment of God as Creator is atheistic, I suppose. But not in the real one.

No. Evolution is just the way God did it. Do you honestly think the Pope is promoting atheism?

Dawkins freely admits that evolution does not disprove God.

Some of us, like Ayala and Miller are devout Roman Catholics.

Rather, it is in convincing Catholics not to fall into the error of creationism, and to accept the Church’s teaching on evolution.

Anyone who says that evolution is all about atheism is at odds with the magesterium of the Church.

Quit making false statements. Why do yoiu insist on the Church confirming common descent as factual such a big deal? Huh? A fact is a fact and the Catholic Church believing it or not does not change that, right?

You think your silly “against the magisterium” guilt attempt means anything. You still have not dealt with the fact that NO scientific theory of evolution allows for God. You still haven’'t dealt with the fact that the Pope has had to address the “many” scientists who say evolution negates a role for God.

Your “against the magisterium” sleight of hand does not put your motives outside of suspicion. You seem to have fallen to an ideology.

Dawkins? The atheist? Did you read the one about the Christmas tree in his house being acceptable even to an atheist? The same Dawkins who has a foundation and published a book that tells parents how to raise their kids without God?

Give me a break. Textbook evolution is atheistic and not compatible with Catholic beliefs as such.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Quit making false statements. Why do yoiu insist on the Church confirming common descent as factual such a big deal?

It would be a big deal. And it would be wrong. The Church isn’t here to make scientific conclusions. Remember the Pope was merely making a scientific conclusion about common descent being certain; he wasn’t making doctrine.

You think your silly “against the magisterium” guilt attempt means anything.

The Church says that evolution is consistent with Catholic belief, so long as it doesn’t deny divine providence. And Darwin’s theory, as you know, doesn’t deny it. In fact, Darwin in The Origin of Species, said that God created living things.

You still have not dealt with the fact that NO scientific theory of evolution allows for God.

I don’t know of one that doesn’t. Certainly modern evolutionary theory does.

You still haven’'t dealt with the fact that the Pope has had to address the “many” scientists who say evolution negates a role for God.

I don’t know of any who do, myself. Even Dawkins admits that evolution doesn’t rule out God. Can you name any prominent scientist who says it does?

Your “against the magisterium” sleight of hand does not put your motives outside of suspicion. You seem to have fallen to an ideology.

We’ll know that, when you can show us anything in modern evolutionary theory that denies God.

Show us.

Give me a break. Textbook evolution is atheistic and not compatible with Catholic beliefs as such.

Sounds good. Give us a checkable source for a science textbook that says there is no God.

 

[edwest2]

Nice try, but no gold ring.

Let’s review:

See post # 404 in this thread by hecd2:

“Your particular theology is not shared by the majority of the scientific community…”

Are most scientists familiar with the work of Charles Darwin?

And, regardless of what you claim the theory of evolution states, would most of them assign to God any role?

The answers to those two questions bring us to the crux of this debate.

Have you ever seen a business contract? I’ve had to study some and your statement connecting Darwin’s belief in God to textbook evolution would never stand up in a court of law. The principle is simple: if it’s not in the contract, it doesn’t exist. There is no connection except when you attempt to make it. None.

I cannot tell you how many times people on other forums have told me about the “mountains of evidence” for evolution but whenever I bring up God, all I get is: “Show me one scientific document that mentions God, just one!” This is quickly followed by me being called a religious nut, fundamentalist and other clear, very clear, indications that connecting God to evolution is verboten. Period. End of story.

So, no wonder the Church has to add language in documents like Human Persons Created in the Image of God that tells us Catholics, if God is denied a role in the theory, it is against Catholic beliefs.

If it’s not in the contract, it doesn’t exist, and, if in court, it would be your word about what Darwin believed against everybody else who wants God kept at an infinite distance from the theory of evolution.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Are most scientists familiar with the work of Charles Darwin?

Mostly. I’d say that biologists understand the theory, and some other scientists do also.

Have you ever seen a business contract? I’ve had to study some and your statement connecting Darwin’s belief in God to textbook evolution would never stand up in a court of law.

Fortunately, Christianity isn’t a matter of man’s law. And a lot of things Jesus said would never stand up in a court of law, either. But He answered to a higher Authority.

I cannot tell you how many times people on other forums have told me about the “mountains of evidence” for evolution but whenever I bring up God, all I get is: “Show me one scientific document that mentions God, just one!”

How odd. Evolution is accepted because of all that evidence. God is accepted on a different basis.

This is quickly followed by me being called a religious nut, fundamentalist and other clear, very clear, indications that connecting God to evolution is verboten.

Perhaps you need a little remedial Kenneth Miller.

So, no wonder the Church has to add language in documents like Human Persons Created in the Image of God that tells us Catholics, if God is denied a role in the theory, it is against Catholic beliefs.

That’s not what the Pope said, of course. He said that any theory of evolution that denied divine providence was against Catholic beliefs. It would be against science, too. No scientific theory can make such a claim.

If it’s not in the contract, it doesn’t exist, and, if in court, it would be your word about what Darwin believed against everybody else who wants God kept at an infinite distance from the theory of evolution.

Fortunately, although science can’t talk about God and evolution, Catholics can.

Try Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God to learn more about the Catholic understanding of God and evolution.

 

[beeliner]

1a. Well, so far we are onto 33 pages of posts on this thread, so far I’ve seen a great deal of new information presented in favor of creation over evolution.

1b. I have yet to see a shred of new factual, rock solid evidence from the evolutionists side of this issue, at best the only argument stated from that side of this is within the literal or figurative nature of scripture.

1. I gotta ask all that are participating on this one, has there been a single person that originally believed in creation, now believes in evolution, and vice versa? I don’t think it has happened in one single case, correct me if I’m wrong here.

1a. And all of that information fatuous and without substance. The key word here is ‘information’. Not facts, nor proof, nor evidence, nor documentation, nor science. The flat earth society’s publications are also loaded with ‘information’.

1b. The fact of evolution was established generations ago. What sort of ‘new’ evidence is required? The fossil record? Being filled in constantly, year after year.

Every encyclopedia in the world, every biologist in the world, every scholarly treatise on the subject affirms the evolution of species. Will ‘new’ findings regarding the various aspects of evolution be reported? Of course. Will any of these lead the science of biology in the direction of ‘creationism’? Of course not!

1. A better question would be, has there been a single person, or even a married person, who has made a serious study of the science of biology with no pre-formed religious agenda clouding his/her mind, who has come to the conclusion that the ‘creationists’ are right and the biologists wrong? If so, who is that person and on what basis did s/he come to such a conclusion?

reggieM:

beeliner…denied that ID proponents publish in peer reviewed journals.

Also, note that, as in the above example, the ‘creationists’ continue to misquote and mischaracterize the posts of the defenders of fact and reality.

Firstly, that is bearing false witness, a direct violation of a commandment. Secondly, it seriously denigrates their own credibility.

 

[anthony022071]

Yep. That’s what it means. If you don’t want to use terms as scientists do, then you’ll have a very difficult time talking about science.

No,that’s not what it means. Macro means large. Macro-evolution means large scale changes in organisms over large intervals of time.

Of course it is. Remember, macroevolution means reproductive isolation from the older population.

No,that’s an example of speciation,not macro-evolution.
Macro-evolution involves a total genetic isolation and the evolution of genera.

Gene duplication is always an increase in information. Would you like to see the numbers?

Gene duplication is not new genetic information which leads to large scale changes above the species level. So polyploidy is not an example of macro-evolution.

Even “scientific creationists” admit that new families evolve.

There is only change within families,not the evolution of new families.

They draw the line there, though. But they can’t show that there’s any barrier beyond that level.

Biology shows it. Speciation doesn’t go any farther than partial genetic isolation on the one hand,and on the other hand hybrid inviability,sterility,and breakdown.

And as the Pope says, the fact that all organisms are genetically related makes common descent virtually certain.

No,the pope was summarizing the scientific account of evolution,not condoning it. He believes than man is a special creation and that the wole of man,body and soul,is created in the image of God.

O. lamarckania and O. gigas can no longer reproduce at all. Reality trumps anyone’s beliefs.

They can’t interbreed only because the O. gigas have extra sets of chromosomes. It has nothing to do with geographic or temporal divergance,or macro-evolution,so the example is irrelevant.

That’s been verified in a very interesting way. You see, humans have 46 chromosomes and other apes have 48. This was sort of a problem for common descent. Scientists therefore theorized that the line that led to humans must have had a chromosome fusion in which two chromosomes fused together (such fusions have been observed). When it became possible to analyze chromosomes, it was then found that the #2 human chromosome is almost exactly like two chimpanzee chromosomes, right down to the remnants of telomeres and a no-longer-functional centromere precisely where it would be if there was a fusion. That nails it.

It doesn’t nail it. Genetic similarities between humans and apes don’t say anything about whether they have a common ancestry.
Ancestry and descent are vertical,and have to do with
reproduction,not merely mutation and lateral gene swapping.
But nature doesn’t allow for distinct new life forms to emerge that are totally incapable of breeding with other life forms.

No. In fact, they are totally isolated now, since hybridization produces sterile individuals, much as hybridization between horses and donkey’s produce sterile mules.

Not all hybrids are sterile.
And sterility is not a good example of isolation that leads to evolution. It means the end of the line.

Hybridization leads to a dead end.
So why would you use hybrid flies as a case for macro-evolution?
That doesn’t make any sense.

Scientists stupidly continue to breed bybrid flies in the hope that a viable species will come about.

And chimps and humans are still primates. You see, flies and primates are the same level of taxa. So it’s a rather large amount of macroevolution.

No,it’s an absurdly large category of creatures. Why not take the absurdity further and invent a category for all creatures that have chromosomes?

 

[anthony022071]

Maybe you need a new dictionary:

Merriam-Webster online will do.

**Many modern philosophers of science use the terms methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism to refer to the methodological assumption that observable effects in nature are best explainable only by natural causes. **

And so,I was right. Methodological naturalism is essentially the same as philosophical naturalism.

In other words, methodological naturalism is the view that the scientific method (hypothesize, predict, test, and repeat) is the only effective way to investigate reality. Any method of inquiry or investigation or any procedure for gaining knowledge that limits itself to natural, physical, and material approaches and explanations can be described as naturalistic.

And that view has its origins in natural philosophy from the
1600’s in England. The natural sciences were called natural philosophy. Methodological naturalism came about concurrently with philosophical naturalism. It is found in the writings of Francis Bacon and Thomas Browne.

Methodological naturalism can be contrasted with the ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism, which refers to the metaphysical belief that the natural world (including the universe) is all that exists and, therefore, nothing supernatural exists.
Wikipedia

Why not get the definition for naturalism from a good dictionary instead of from Wikipedia?

Ontological naturalism says that nature is all there is. Methodological naturalism is a system that is unable to say whether or not nature is all there is.

If you don’t see a huge difference between these two, I believe we’ve found the source of your difficulties.

I wasn’t referring to ontological naturalism,but to naturalism itself,which is the belief that all natural phenomena should be explained only with natural causes and scientific laws.

Barbarian obeserves:
No, Einstein was a deist, who professed belief in the God of Spinoza.

Let’s take a look. Einstein, when asked if he was a Spinozaist:

You evidently don’t know what deist means. Spinoza was a pantheist,and Einstein advocated a cosmic religiosity.

Let’s take a look…

**Speciation and Macroevolution

19 and 22 March, 1999

Imagine that.**

I’ll pass on imagining what you are imagining here.
The writer says that Mayr’s definition of species focuses on the element of reproductive isolation. That does not mean that the definition of macro-evolution is reproductive isolation. Reproductive isolation is a factor in speciation. Macro-evolution has to do with large scale changes in organisms over thousands of years. You’re confusing speciation with macro-evolution. Speciation doesn’t lead to large scale changes in populations which are totally unable to breed with each other.

 

[wildleafblower]

sorry mistake

 

[The_Barbarian]

Maybe you need a new dictionary:
Merriam-Webster online will do.

**Many modern philosophers of science use the terms methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism to refer to the methodological assumption that observable effects in nature are best explainable only by natural causes. In other words, methodological naturalism is the view that the scientific method (hypothesize, predict, test, and repeat) is the only effective way to investigate reality. Any method of inquiry or investigation or any procedure for gaining knowledge that limits itself to natural, physical, and material approaches and explanations can be described as naturalistic.

Methodological naturalism can be contrasted with the ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism, which refers to the metaphysical belief that the natural world (including the universe) is all that exists and, therefore, nothing supernatural exists.**

And so,I was right. Methodological naturalism is essentially the same as philosophical naturalism.

No, you’re wrong. I highlighted the differences so you could find them easier. Methodological naturalism limits itself to the physical universe without denying the existence of the supernatural.

Barbarian observes:
Ontological naturalism says that nature is all there is. Methodological naturalism is a system that is unable to say whether or not nature is all there is.

If you don’t see a huge difference between these two, I believe we’ve found the source of your difficulties.

I wasn’t referring to ontological naturalism,but to naturalism itself,which is the belief that all natural phenomena should be explained only with natural causes and scientific laws.

Nope. Methodological naturalism is just a way of investigating nature, without taking any stand on the supernatural. Ontological naturalism is the idea that nature is all there is. If you can’t get this, you’ll never understand science.

Barbarian observes:
Let’s take a look. Einstein, when asked if he was a Spinozaist:
(Einstein denies being a pantheist)

You evidently don’t know what deist means.

Learn about it here:
**Deism is the belief in a supreme being, who remains unknowable and untouchable. God is viewed as merely the “first cause” and underlying principle of rationality in the universe. Deists believe in a god of nature – a noninterventionist creator – who permits the universe to run itself according to natural laws. **
allaboutphilosophy.org/deism.htm

The writer says that Mayr’s definition of species focuses on the element of reproductive isolation. That does not mean that the definition of macro-evolution is reproductive isolation. Reproductive isolation is a factor in speciation.

Which is macroevolution; “microevolution” is variation within a species.

Macro-evolution has to do with large scale changes in organisms over thousands of years.

That’s not the scientific definition. Creationists like it; “Macroevolution is only evolution so great that we can’t directly observe it. And we know it doesn’t happen because it’s never been directly observed.”

You’re confusing speciation with macro-evolution. Speciation doesn’t lead to large scale changes in populations which are totally unable to breed with each other.

That’s what speciation is. Incidentally, most creationists also accept that speciation is reproductive isolation.

 

[wildleafblower]

Fortunately, Christianity isn’t a matter of man’s law. And a lot of things Jesus said would never stand up in a court of law, either. But He answered to a higher Authority.
[snip]

That’s not what the Pope said, of course. He said that any theory of evolution that denied divine providence was against Catholic beliefs. It would be against science, too. No scientific theory can make such a claim.

[snip]

Hi Barbarian,

I wish to immediately respond to your two comments as noted above.

Barbarian, regarding your first comment,“Fortunately, Christianity isn’t a matter of man’s law. And a lot of things Jesus said would never stand up in a court of law, either. But He answered to a higher Authority.” My response is as follows:
PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR CULTURE
PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE
PRESENTATIONS OF HOLY SEE’S DOCUMENT ON “NEW AGE”

**Distorted vision of Christ **
7. When we see and hear the expression New Age Movement, it is important to remember that originally this referred to the New Age of Aquarius. The document that is being presented to you is a response to the need felt by the Bishops and faithful in various parts of the world. These people have repeatedly asked for help in understanding the New Age Movement from the moment they became aware of the number of people involved in such a movement in different ways and at different levels. They have also asked for a guide to better respond to this already omnipresent phenomenon. The title itself of the document, from the outset, makes it clear that the age of Aquarius will never be able to offer what Christ can offer. The encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well of Sychar (Jn 4,1-42), told in the Gospel of John, is the key text that has guided the reflection during the drafting of the preliminary report on the New Age Movement presented to you today. As one can see, the Document is not intended to be a definitive declaration on the issue. It is a pastoral reflection aimed at helping Bishops, catechists, and as many as are devoted to the different programmes of formation of the Church in order to point out the origins of the New Age Movement, so that one may see in what way it influences the lives of Christians and to work out means and active methods to respond to the numerous and various challenges that the New Age Movement poses to the Christian community in those parts of the world where it is present. This can also be a challenge for those Christians who are tempted by what the New Age Movement is saying about Jesus Christ, in order to recognize that there are many differences between the Cosmic Christ and the Historical Christ. In the last analysis, this Document is another sign of the Church’s attention towards the world. This is born from the Church’s obligation to remain faithful to the Good News of the life, death and Resurrection of Jesus, who truly offers living water to all those who draw near to Him with an open mind and heart.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_press-conf-new-age_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...erelg_doc_20030203_press-conf-new-age_en.html
Barbarian, God is THE Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity. Do you accept that?

Barbarian, regarding your first and second comment,“Fortunately, Christianity isn’t a matter of man’s law. And a lot of things Jesus said would never stand up in a court of law, either. But He answered to a higher Authority. [snip] That’s not what the Pope said, of course. He said that any theory of evolution that denied divine providence was against Catholic beliefs. It would be against science, too. No scientific theory can make such a claim.” My response is as follows:

APOSTOLIC JOURNEY
OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II
TO CROATIA (OCTOBER 2-4, 1998)
SPEECH TO THE PEOPLE
2 October 1998

[snip-Please read the document in its entirety.]

In a particular way, I address you Christians, who, according to the words of the Apostle Peter, must be “prepared to make a defence to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet 3:15).

I thank Providence which has guided my steps and brought me back once more to Croatia. The words of one of your poets come spontaneously to my lips: “Here all are brothers to me / I feel really at home . . .” (D. Domjanic, Kaj). I would like to be able to greet personally all the people of this land, whatever their social condition: from farmers to manual workers, from housewives to professionals, from sailors and fishermen to office workers and people of culture and science; from the youngest to the elderly and the sick. My good wishes of peace and hope go to everyone!

[snip]

Today Christ is knocking at the door of your hearts: open the door to welcome him in! He has the complete answers to your expectations. With him, under the loving gaze of the Blessed Virgin Mary, you will be able to build your future creatively.

Draw inspiration from the Gospel! In the light of its teaching you will be able to cultivate a healthy critical spirit in the face of fashionable conformity, and you will succeed in bringing to your world the liberating newness of the Beatitudes. Learn to distinguish between good and evil, without being hasty in judging. This is the wisdom which must be the mark of every mature person.

1. The citizen, particularly the believer, has precise responsibilities with regard to his own homeland. Your country expects from you a significant contribution in the different areas of social, economic, political and cultural life. Its future will be better to the degree that each one of you makes a commitment to self-improvement.

Human life on this earth entails difficulties of various kinds: solutions to these are certainly not to be found by seeking refuge in hedonism, consumerism, drugs or alcohol. I exhort you to face adversities with courage, to look for answers to them in the light of the Gospel. You must rediscover the resources of faith, so that you can draw from them the strength to bear courageous and consistent witness.

The Servant of God Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac, who tomorrow — God willing — I shall raise to the honours of the altar, encouraged the youth of his day: “Pay attention to yourselves and continue to grow up, because without people who are solid and mature from a moral point of view nothing is accomplished. The greatest patriots are not those who shout the loudest, but those who most conscientiously fulfil the law of God” (Homilies, Speeches, Messages, Zagreb 1996, p. 97).

May your youthful enthusiasm, nourished by a profound relationship with God, never fade. In this regard, the same Cardinal Stepinac said to his priests: “Put far from our youth all faint-heartedness, as though it were the plague, for it is unworthy of Catholics, who can boast so great a name as is the name of our God” (Letters from Prison, Zagreb 1998, p. 310).

[snip]

I wish to quote here the words spoken by my Predecessor of venerable memory, Pius XII, on 24 December 1939: “A fundamental basis for a just and honourable peace is the guarantee of the life and independence of all Nations, big and small, strong and weak” (AAS, 32 [1940], p. 10). These words retain all their value also in the prospect of the new millennium which is now at the threshold. But they are also words which call upon every individual Nation to model its own juridical system according to what is demanded of the State ruled by law, thanks to the growing respect for the aspirations rooted in the innate dignity of the citizens who make up the State.

It is my hope that the fundamental rights of the person will be ever better recognized and embraced in this country, beginning with the right to life from its very first moments until its natural end. The degree of a Nation’s civilization is measured by the compassion which it shows its weakest and most needy members, and by its commitment to work for their rehabilitation and their full insertion into the life of society.

1. The Church feels called to be part of this process of human promotion. She knows, however, that her first and primary duty is to make her contribution by proclaiming the Gospel and forming consciences. In fulfilling this task she counts on each one of you, dear faithful people who are listening to me today: she counts on your witness and, before all else, on your prayers. It is by prayer, in fact, that we open ourselves to the constant saving presence of God in the life of every person and every people. Communion with God nourishes courage and hope in our hearts. May each one of you rediscover the immense treasures hidden in personal and community prayer!

With all my heart I hope that the people of Croatia will remain faithful to Christ also in the future. This faithfulness holds the secret of true freedom: it is Christ, in fact, who “for freedom . . . has set us free” (Gal 5:1). And this freedom, as one of your poets sings, “is a gift in which God Most High has given us every treasure” (I. Gundulic, Dubravka).

[snip]

May the Lord grant you steadfast faith, active harmony and the wisdom to make decisions inspired by the common good.
[snip]

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/travels/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_02101998_croazia-people_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j.../hf_jp-ii_spe_02101998_croazia-people_en.html

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian, God is THE Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity. Do you accept that?

I’m pleased you accept it. But I wasn’t aware that I said you didn’t.

Barbarian observes:
Fortunately, Christianity isn’t a matter of man’s law. And a lot of things Jesus said would never stand up in a court of law, either. But He answered to a higher Authority. [snip] That’s not what the Pope said, of course. He said that any theory of evolution that denied divine providence was against Catholic beliefs. It would be against science, too. No scientific theory can make such a claim.

My response is as follows:

(apparently unrelated matter)

Sorry, I don’t see your point.

(edit: I see you made the post in error. No problem.)

 

[wildleafblower]

Barbarian, do you accept God is THE Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Do you believe in a Truine God? I would really appreciate you answering my two questions. And I do think I made it very clear in my last message that Jesus doesn’t need to answer to a higher authority!

Barbarian, I recall you mentioning a while back that you see God in everything. Do you?

I’ll be back later. I need a cup of coffee first.

I see ya below Ricmat. Hiya! Great news about your daughter. I see Alec shines below you.

 

[ricmat]

Every encyclopedia in the world, every biologist in the world, every scholarly treatise on the subject affirms the evolution of species.

snip…

Also, note that, as in the above example, the ‘creationists’ continue to misquote and mischaracterize the posts of the defenders of fact and reality.

Firstly, that is bearing false witness, a direct violation of a commandment. Secondly, it seriously denigrates their own credibility.

There’s not a single dissenter? Wow. That seems like an exaggeration to me.

But then, if anyone who disagrees with the “facts” of evolution is automatically branded as a “creationist” who is bearing false witness, as beeliner accuses above, that would be a powerful incentive not to disagree with beeliner.

There’s a lot of “misquoting” going on, on both sides. I’ve said before that I believe it is merely a failure to communicate clearly, not an intentional act. It is a well known fact that one way to understand your opponent is to try to repeat back to them (in your own words) what you think they said. So they can clear it up if it is not correct. If they don’t get it right, correct it. But to accuse them of false witness? If this is where science takes your soul, perhaps you should “cut it off.”

As an aside, as I’ve stated many times, I personally believe in “most” of evolution. The only part I don’t buy is that all the mutations happened randomly. And I’ve been branded as a lying young earth creationist as well. Gee whiz. Even hecd2 admitted that he might be wrong. It seems that the atheist has more humility than many of the Catholic evolutionists.

1. A better question would be, has there been a single person, or even a married person, who has made…

Well, at least you still have a sense of humor

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

As for your quote from another scientist whose opinion you claim is more moderate than mine, why didn’t give a reference or a link so that we can read the full thing in context? Why post an unreferenced out of context quote?

Why do you think I did that?

Further avoidance of a reference to your source noted. That is not good form.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

To Alec,

See this document. Read Part 69:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

The Catholic Church tells me, no divine providence, no evolution. It’s clear, it’s simple. That’s what I believe. And by the way, there is no scientific paper or document that attributes any role to God. That is and will continue to be the whole reason for the debate. For Catholics, God’s involvement is critical.

God bless,
Ed