Creation or Evolution

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
Am I to assume since you again declined to name any scientist who says evolutionary theory denies God’s providence, that you realize there are none?

More truth shading.

It’s a question. Since yoiu dodged it again, it appears I’m right. You can’t think of one, either. Is it possible,if no one can find one, they don’t exist?

You ignore the clear connection between science and the ideology Cardinal Schoemborn writes about.

I ignore boogymen, too. For the same reason.

You ignore the fact that he wrote most science today is ideology, not science. That is the point.

Tell you what. Let’s agree on a method to take 100 papers from the biological literature, and then see how many “explicitly deny divine providence” (the Church’s standard) to see. Fair enough?

Anyone who thinks evolutionary science is neutral is fooling themselves. It is a Godless-materialist ideology.

Don’t forget plumbing. It’s a Godless-materialist ideology too.

(Long rant about “ideology”)

So let’s test it. Give me a good way to randomly pick 100 papers, and we’ll see.

You, like hecd2, ignore Pope Pius XII. Adam and Eve could not have been our first parents–

It won’t help you to lie, Ed. You’ve been informed that Adam and Eve as individuals does not conflict with evolutionary theory. When you deliberately misrepresent what I said and believe, you will be called on it. Don’t lie about me again.

 

[edwest2]

You believe Adam and Eve were our first parents and committed original sin, necessitating the birth of Jesus Christ?

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

You believe Adam and Eve were our first parents and committed original sin, necessitating the birth of Jesus Christ?

I’ve told you so more than once. That’s what the Church says. It’s not a problem for evolutionary theory.

So are you going to tell me how we’re going to pick 100 papers to test your claim? Or are you already aware of how that will turn out?

 

[peary]

My wife’s Fanny is absolutely angelic.

 

[beeliner]

There IS a recipe in that cookbook for angel food cake. Really.

 

[edwest2]

I’ve told you so more than once. That’s what the Church says. It’s not a problem for evolutionary theory.

So are you going to tell me how we’re going to pick 100 papers to test your claim? Or are you already aware of how that will turn out?

I contend it is a problem for evolutionary theory. I don’t think evolutionary theory can account for Adam and Eve.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian asks once more:
I’ve told you so more than once. That’s what the Church says. It’s not a problem for evolutionary theory.

So are you going to tell me how we’re going to pick 100 papers to test your claim? Or are you already aware of how that will turn out?

I contend it is a problem for evolutionary theory.

So that puts science and the Church on one side, and you on the other. Not much of a choice for the rest of us, um?

I don’t think evolutionary theory can account for Adam and Eve.

Can’t account for protons, either. But that’s not a problem. It’s not supposed to. All that’s necessary is that it is consistent with protons and Adam and Eve.

And it is.

Since you’ve repeatedly declined to agree to test your assertion, I gather you now realize it is false.

 

[peary]

You are wrong on two counts - at least.

Firstly, Genesis does not identify the serpent as the devil or as any sort of supernatural entity whatever, only as ‘the most cunning beast in the garden’. The identification of the serpent with SATAN, not Lucifer, is merely an afterthought, the concept of Satan being Exilic in origin.

Secondly, the name ‘Lucifer’ refers not to the devil but to the planet Venus, the morning star, as personified by the king of Babylon, who may have been a devilish individual, but a mere human nonetheless.

Well, you’re wrong too
By the very fact that the serpent was in the Garden of Eden meant that ‘it’ was immortal too. Adam & Eve, though made from physical matter, also were not ‘fallen’ at this time and possessed all the attributes that Christ had after His resurrection. The serpent was always associated with Satan, God’s adversarial angel (Wisdom 2:24; John 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2).

 

[beeliner]

**1. Well, you’re wrong too

1. By the very fact that the serpent was in the Garden of Eden meant that ‘it’ was immortal too. Adam & Eve, though made from physical matter, also were not ‘fallen’ at this time and possessed all the attributes that Christ had after His resurrection.
2. The serpent was always** associated with Satan, God’s adversarial angel (Wisdom 2:24; John 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2).

1. So you say.
2. Wow, talk about obtuse! Could you rephrase that in coherent English?
3. The verses you cite were written several centuries after Genesis. That is hardly ‘always’.

The idea of an ‘chief adversary’ was borrowed from Zoroastrianism at the time of the Exile. I know of of no mention of ‘Satan’ prior to 1 Chronicles. Do you?

 

[anthony022071]

[Orogeny]

No, it means that science is limited in its scope.

That is a professional choice.
Scientists *choose *to limit the scope of science to natural causes. But it was not always that way. The natural sciences are an outgrowth of natural philosophy.

How can the study of nature address the supernatural, that which is outside of nature?

The study of the processes of organisms involves the factor of life itself. Life is an unknown quantity as far as science is concerned,and supernatural. Life is the substance that drives the processes of organisms.
So the study of the origins of species unavoidably involves the workings of the supernatural.

All science is silent on God

.

That’s not true. The scientists from the Middle Ages through the 1800’s were not silent on God.

Just because evolution deals with origins does not separate it from other science.

It does distinguish it from other sciences. The origins of species have to do with life and existence,which is theological territory.

What you are attempting to do is to put a different burden on biology and perhaps geology and cosmology than on chemistry or physics.

Biology involves life,and cosmology involves existence and the question of design,so they are different from chemistry and physics.

Is science incapable of teaching us anything?

Yes,science is currently teaching a naturalistic outlook on nature.

One’s understanding isn’t complete (relatively speaking) without both science and faith. Those who deny science and insist that scriptures hold the entire story are at odds with reality and the Church.

I don’t don’t science per se,I deny the assumption of naturalism,which is that all phenomena in nature can be explained by scientific laws and natural causes.
Life is a phenomena in nature,and the processes of organisms happen because of life. And life is spirit. So naturalism is false.
That false assumption leads to false theories.

 

[edwest2]

To anthony022071,

You will soon be told that the evidence doesn’t support this.

You will then be told science doesn’t prove anything. No proof.

This will be followed by Evolution is a fact.

Clearly, some people here are promoting a parlour game, not science.

I think you are on the right track. Gregor Mendel was a monk. The first message sent by telegraph was: “What hath God wrought?” (Samuel Morse). Clearly, God was thanked and exalted. It was He that brought forth an invention. God is not exalted here, only the limited mind of man.

Peace,
Ed

 

[anthony022071]

[The Barbarian]

No. Evolutionary theory makes no claims about the way life began.

It makes claims about the way species began.

And it’s been that way from the start. Darwin made no claims about the way life began, except to say that God did it.

So let it never be said that science cannot bring God into its theories.

Nope. It comes from the recognition that inductive processes can work only on evidence from the physical universe.

Methodological naturalism is philosophical naturalism put into practice.

Wrong again. It cannot comment on the supernatural, and thereby can neither affirm nor deny the existence of God.

Methodological naturalism does comment on the supernatural.
It disallows supernatural causes. If it did not deny the supernatural,it would just be “method”.

Nope. If plumbing methods can’t verify God, that doesn’t mean that plumbing denies God. What a silly idea.

Examine your own silly ideas.
Plumbing methods are not methodological naturalism but just methods. No need for naturalism,which is a philosophical idea. Plumbing does not involve the study of the origins of species and it is not one of the natural sciences.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian corrects Anthony:
No. Evolutionary theory makes no claims about the way life began.

It makes claims about the way species began.

Much better. These claims, btw, have been verified by direct observation.

Barbarian observes:
And it’s been that way from the start. Darwin made no claims about the way life began, except to say that God did it.

So let it never be said that science cannot bring God into its theories.

It can’t. That was a statement of religious faith. Science has no way of testing the idea that God created the first living thing.

Barbarian observes:
Nope. It comes from the recognition that inductive processes can work only on evidence from the physical universe.

Methodological naturalism is philosophical naturalism put into practice.

No. Philosophical naturalism declares that nature is all there is. Methodological naturalism looks to natural causes for natural phenomena, without saying whether or not the supernatural exists.

Barbarian observes:
Wrong again. It cannot comment on the supernatural, and thereby can neither affirm nor deny the existence of God.

Methodological naturalism does comment on the supernatural.

Nope. If you doubt this, show me a paper from the scientific literature that does it.

It disallows supernatural causes.

Sorry, someone’s had a little fun with your trust in them. It does no such thing. But don’t take my word for it. Take a look at the process in practice. You’ll find I’m right.

Barbarian observes:
Nope. If plumbing methods can’t verify God, that doesn’t mean that plumbing denies God. What a silly idea.

Examine your own silly ideas.

No need to get upset. Just learn a bit about what methodological naturalism is, and you won’t be so concerned about it.

Plumbing methods are not methodological naturalism

They are absolutely methodological naturalism. Plumbers look for natural causes for natural plumbing problems. But this doesn’t mean that plumbing denies God. How silly.

No need for naturalism,which is a philosophical idea.

You’ve conflated a methodology with a philosophy again. So you’re still tangled up in your own misconceptions.

Plumbing does not involve the study of the origins of species and it is not one of the natural sciences.

All sciences are methodologically naturalistic. Hydraulics is just one of them. The issue of course, is that hydraulics doesn’t scare you.

And biology does.

 

[anthony022071]

[edwest]

Clearly, some people here are promoting a parlour game, not science.

It’s a game of bait and switch,or a shell game,and it involves the definitions of the words: evolution,macro-evolution,species,speciation,naturalism, methodological naturalism.

 

[edwest2]

anthony022071

Yes. They will not admit that plumbing, cookbooks or hydraulics will not tell you who you are, but evolution does. Evolutionary psychology does.

And this is where the conflict occurs. It doesn’t matter what Darwin thought about God. The simple evidence for this is “keep God out of my public science class!” So you see, they can never say Darwin believed God was involved. He was kicked out years ago.

God bless,
Ed

 

[anthony022071]

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian corrects Anthony:
No. Evolutionary theory makes no claims about the way life began.

You didn’t correct me,because I didn’t say that evolution makes claims about the way life began. I said “origins of species”.

Much better. These claims, btw, have been verified by direct observation.

No,the claims of macro-evolution and common descent theory have not been verified by direct observed. They have not been observed at all.

It can’t.

Scientists do. They take methodological naturalism as their point of departure. They deny supernatural causes in the practice of their profession.

That was a statement of religious faith.

By a scientist,in a book about the theory of evolution.

Science has no way of testing the idea that God created the first living thing.

Nor does it have a way of testing the ideas of macro-evolution or common descent.

No. Philosophical naturalism declares that nature is all there is.

Not necessarily – that is more like ontological naturalism and scientific pantheism. Philosophical naturalism did not begin with people who claimed what Carl Sagan claimed.

Galileo,Francis Bacon and Thomas Browne,and Issac Newton were philosophical naturalists,and they did not say that nature is all there is. They just believed that science was best conducted without reference to supernatural causes.

Methodological naturalism looks to natural causes for natural phenomena, without saying whether or not the supernatural exists.

Just like philosophical naturalism

Nope. If you doubt this, show me a paper from the scientific literature that does it.

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/schafersman_nat.html
< Under the influence of philosophers John Herschel and William Whewell, methodological naturalism was systematized and promulgated, so that, by the end of the nineteenth century, methodological naturalism was embedded in science. Naturalism as a necessary part of science thus developed gradually as science developed gradually with the practice and understanding of scientists. Appreciation of the hypothetico-deductive method and empirical-skeptical testing of hypotheses required naturalism, since legitimate, scientific supernatural predictions cannot be made or supernatural conjectures tested. Holdout scientists who persisted in using supernatural explanations were gradually abandoned intellectually by their students and colleagues, and they eventually died with no successors. There was never a single moment or event when supernaturalism was evicted from the structure of science and naturalism locked in. However, by the turn of the twentieth century, supernaturalism had been methodologically eliminated and the scientific method came to be identified as naturalistic. The last legitimate creationist scientists died around this time, and creationist pseudoscience was soon to be born. Thus, methodological naturalism became historically an essential part of science. >

 

[Namesake]

[The Barbarian]

You didn’t correct me,because I didn’t say that evolution makes claims about the way life began. I said “origins of species”.?QUOTE]

I realize that I am butting in here, but, biological evolution can address the beginning of life on Earth. Replicating proteins became simple cells by evolving protective barriers (cell walls) that increased their survival odds. And on it went. No proof, but a pretty good hypothesis.

 

[edwest2]

They just assembled themselves, including the necessary duplicating machinery? Life from non-life? I doubt it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

They just assembled themselves, including the necessary duplicating machinery? Life from non-life? I doubt it.

**Gen 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. **

I don’t.

 

[edwest2]

God did it? What’s scientific about that? It all happened naturally, on its own. It just takes one lucky incident out of 10 followed by a million zeros, followed by another lucky incident, and another and…

Peace,
Ed