Creation or Evolution

[Tracy10]

I keep running into threads where they clearly all end up with creation verses evolution. It always ends up in an ugly debate between both sides and much of the time, tends to become quite off topic.
.

My take is that it was part of both. Read the Lost Book of Enki and you will see how this all fits in. Apparently that book was translated from Sumerian tablets far older than the bible, which still exist today. It all makes so much sense!

When I read it I felt as if the noticeably huge gaps in Genesis were finally explained!

 

[The_Barbarian]

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

(Denial)

Doesn’t matter.

Barbarian observes:
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.

The first one was about 1904. Speciation by polyploidy.

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

Nope. If you doubt it, let’s take a random sample of 100 papers in the scientific literature and see how many deny supernatural causes.

Barbarian on Darwin’s profession of faith that God created the first living things:
That was a statement of religious faith.

By a scientist

Yes. Many scientists are men and women of faith.

Barbarian observes:
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.

Sure it does. The Pope mentions one in his report of the International Theological Commission and alludes to there being many more.

Barbarian observes:
No. Philosophical naturalism declares that nature is all there is.

Not necessarily

Yep. Some people think that Philosophical naturalism for the possibility that supernatural things exist, but only as natural things. Which seems like a muddled idea.

Galileo,Francis Bacon and Thomas Browne,and Issac Newton were philosophical naturalists,and they did not say that nature is all there is.

They were all methodological naturalists, from the writings I have seen.

They just believed that science was best conducted without reference to supernatural causes.

For Bacon and Newton, at least, they thought that it could only be done that way. Don’t know for sure about Gallileo, but everything I’ve read by him indicates the same.

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

Just like philosophical naturalism

No. Philosophical naturalism either denies the supernatural outright, or claims it is also natural.

(claims that methodological naturalism denies the supernatural)

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

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/…rsman_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. >

This confirms what I said. Methodological naturalism looks only to natural causes for natural phenomena, but does not deny the existence of the supernatural.

Nothing in there denies the existence of the supernatural, as I told you.

 

[edwest2]

My take is that it was part of both. Read the Lost Book of Enki and you will see how this all fits in. Apparently that book was translated from Sumerian tablets far older than the bible, which still exist today. It all makes so much sense!

When I read it I felt as if the noticeably huge gaps in Genesis were finally explained!

Extraterrestrial god? A Sitchin book? Whew…

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Quoting The Barbarian:

“Many scientists are men and women of faith.”

Nature magazine definitely shows otherwise:

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Kenneth Miller and Francisco Ayala are major players in evolutionary theory. And both devout Catholics. One of the major scientists in the formation of the new synthesis was Theodosius Dobzhansky, a Russian Orthodox Christian. Francis Collins, the director of the Human Genome Project is an evangelical Christian.

It is notable that Collins was expelled from the film “Expelled” after the producers discovered that he considered ID to be false. As noted earlier, IDers are not very tolerant of Christians who don’t accept their religious view.

 

[anthony022071]

[The Barbarian]

Doesn’t matter.

No,I didn’t say that. Stop misrepresenting.

The first one was about 1904. Speciation by polyploidy.

No macro-evolution or common descent there. Just offspring with extras sets of the parents’ genetic information.

Nope. If you doubt it, let’s take a random sample of 100 papers in the scientific literature and see how many deny supernatural causes.

Take a random sample of scientific papers which criticize creationist theories or intelligent design theories,and see how many don’t deny supernatural causes.

Yes. Many scientists are men and women of faith.

And some scientists bring God or the supernatural
into their theoretical work,like Darwin did.

Sure it does. The Pope mentions one in his report of the International Theological Commission and alludes to there being many more.

No,the pope doesn’t believe that macro-evolution can be tested.

They were all methodological naturalists, from the writings I have seen.

There was no difference for them between the principle of
naturalism and the method. The method had a philosophical basis.

The natural sciences went under the heading of natural philosophy,and the early experimental scientists believed in the naturalistic principle that the philosopher Francis Bacon popularized.

For Bacon and Newton, at least, they thought that it could only be done that way. Don’t know for sure about Gallileo, but everything I’ve read by him indicates the same.

Galileo’s naturalism was of the same kind as that of Francis Bacon. It had little to do with Carl Sagan’s way of thinking,that the cosmos is all that there is.

No. Philosophical naturalism either denies the supernatural outright, or claims it is also natural.

That’s not true. The naturalism of the early experimental philosophers,as they were called,had a philosophical origin.
The philosophical principle came first,and then methodological naturalism became normative.

This confirms what I said.

It confirms what I said. Methodological naturalism has a philosophical origin and it denies supernatural causes.

Methodological naturalism looks only to natural causes for natural phenomena, but does not deny the existence of the supernatural.

Nothing in there denies the existence of the supernatural, as I told you.

Methodological naturalism denies the existence of supernatural causesin nature.
It denies that God is active in nature. Get it now? This isn’t about whether methodological naturalism denies the supernatural even outside of scientific theory. It denies any supernatural causes **in **scientific theory. A denial of supernatural causes in the natural world is a denial of God’s activity.

Methodological naturalism doesn’t allow for the Catholic belief,mentioned in the International Theological Commission document,that God is involved with secondary causes.

So any theory of evolution which derives from methodological naturalism is,de facto,an ontologically naturalist theory,because the theory explains history **as if **nature is all there is.

There’s no point in saying of the theory of evolution: “and this is how God did it”. The theory itself doesn’t allow for the activity of God.

 

[anthony022071]

stephanscom.at/edw/katechesen/articles/2005/10/14/a9347/

Creation and Evolution: To the Debate as It Stands
Christoph Cardinal Schönborn’s First Catechetical Lecture for 2005/2006: Sunday, October 2nd, 2005, St. Stephan’s Cathedral, Vienna.

< Annotation: It has come to our attention that the content of Cardinal Schönborn’s first catechesis has been mis-reported in the English-speaking press as somehow drawing back from his essay in The New York Times. This is inaccurate, as will be apparent from the full text. In order to clear up this misunderstanding, we are posting here an initial draft of an English translation. >

nytimes.com/2005/07/09/science/09cardinal.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=0c18381d982e5e77&ex=1278561600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

< In a telephone interview from a monastery in Austria, where he was on retreat, the cardinal said that his essay had not been approved by the Vatican, but that two or three weeks before Pope Benedict XVI’s election in April, he spoke with the pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, about the church’s position on evolution. “I said I would like to have a more explicit statement about that, and he encouraged me to go on,” said Cardinal Schönborn.

He said that he had been “angry” for years about writers and theologians, many Catholics, who he said had “misrepresented” the church’s position as endorsing the idea of evolution as a random process. >

 

[The_Barbarian]

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

(Denial)

Barbarian observes:
Doesn’t matter.

(more denial)

Barbarian on directly observed macroevolution:
The first one was about 1904. Speciation by polyploidy.

No macro-evolution or common descent there.

Sure is. A new species evolved from the old; it is a viable population of organisms, rerproductively isolated from the population that gave rise to them. And common descent is obvious.

Babarian regarding the idea that scientists deny the supernatural in their work:
Nope. If you doubt it, let’s take a random sample of 100 papers in the scientific literature and see how many deny supernatural causes.

(some quick backpedalling)

Take a random sample of scientific papers which criticize creationist theories or intelligent design theories

Even that won’t help you. But there isn’t much about creationism or ID in the scientific literature. Keep in mind, just because scientists criticize the religion of ID/creationism, that doesn’t mean that they deny the supernatural. Indeed, even atheistic scientists will tell you that science can’t do that.

How would you like to do the sampling? We could go to Pub Med, search on “creationism” and take every 3rd paper, and see how many say that science rules out the supernatural. I already know how it will turn out, but if you like, I’ll show you.

Barbarian observes:
Yes. Many scientists are men and women of faith.

And some scientists bring God or the supernatural
into their theoretical work,like Darwin did.

Don’t know of an example like that. Which theory of his do you think has God as an element?

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

Barbarian observes:
Sure it does. The Pope mentions one in his report of the International Theological Commission and alludes to there being many more.

No,the pope doesn’t believe that macro-evolution can be tested.

Sure does. Not only does he assert that it can be tested, he says it has been tested and verified in many ways.

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.
bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm

They were all methodological naturalists, from the writings I have seen.

Of course. But the Pope is only a methodological naturalist with regard to science. Like scientists, he knows that is applicable only to science.

There was no difference for them between the principle of
naturalism and the method. The method had a philosophical basis.

The Pope is a philosophical naturalist? I don’t think so.

Barbarian observes:
For Bacon and Newton, at least, they thought that it could only be done that way. Don’t know for sure about Gallileo, but everything I’ve read by him indicates the same.

Galileo’s naturalism was of the same kind as that of Francis Bacon.

Yes. It was only a method, not a philosophical position. As Galileo said, theology is how to go to heaven, science is about the way the heavens go.

(Barbarian shows that methodological naturalism does not deny supernatural causes)

This confirms what I said.

No, it refutes what you said.

It confirms what I said. Methodological naturalism has a philosophical origin and it denies supernatural causes.

It doesn’t say that methodological naturalism denies supernatural causes. It says that it can’t test for supernatural causes. There’s no point in pretending otherwise; it’s still on the board for people to see.

Methodological naturalism denies the existence of supernatural causesin nature.

Let’s see…

**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. **

Nope. It says science can’t test for them. You conflated that to mean “denies.”

It denies that God is active in nature. Get it now?

See above. Time to get back with reality.

This isn’t about whether methodological naturalism denies the supernatural even outside of scientific theory. It denies any supernatural causes in scientific theory.

Nope. It says we can’t test for them scientifically.

Methodological naturalism doesn’t allow for the Catholic belief,mentioned in the International Theological Commission document,that God is involved with secondary causes.

The Pope disagrees with you. So do most Catholics. And all scientists. So you’re kinda out on that limb by yourself.

So any theory of evolution which derives from methodological naturalism is,de facto,an ontologically naturalist theory,because the theory explains history as if nature is all there is.

All of science is methodologically naturalistic. The Pope himself used methodological naturalism in his statement that common descent is virtually certain.

There’s no point in saying of the theory of evolution: “and this is how God did it”. The theory itself doesn’t allow for the activity of God.

No, it can’t But scientists can. Hence, even though God was not part of Darwin’s theory, he could still acknowledge God’s role.

It would be good for you to clear up this misconception.

 

[anthony022071]

nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was “more than just a hypothesis,” defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.

But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things…

…In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological Commission, pointed out that Benedict was at the time head of the commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem with the notion of “evolution” as used by mainstream biologists - that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism.

The commission’s document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul’s 1996letter on evolution, the commission cautions that “the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”

Furthermore, according to the commission, “An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist.”

Indeed, in the homily at his installation just a few weeks ago, Benedict proclaimed: “We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”…

…Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of “chance and necessity” are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.

 

[anthony022071]

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2005/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20051109_en.html

Pope Benedict:

The Lord, through sacred Scripture, awakens the reasoning that is asleep within us and tells us: In the beginning was the creative Word — the Word that created everything, that created this intelligent design that is the universe —and also love.

 

[anthony022071]

catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=21156&section=Cathcom

National Catholic Reporter: Evolving thought – Pope’s writings revealing about his evolution views

…“Micro-evolution” refers to developmental changes within a species, while “macro-evolution” is the transition from one species to another on the basis of mutation and selection. Some critics of evolution concede the former but dispute the latter, and Ratzinger has voiced support for this view.

His comments come in a Nov. 27, 1999, lecture delivered at the Sorbonne titled “The Truth of Christianity,” published in his 2003 book Truth and Tolerance.

“No one will be able to cast serious doubt upon the scientific evidence for micro-evolutionary processes,” he wrote. “R. Junker and S. Scherer, in their ‘critical reader’ on evolution, have this to say: ‘Many examples of such developmental steps [micro-evolutionary processes] are known to us from natural processes of variation and development. The research done on them by evolutionary biologists produced significant knowledge of the adaptive capacity of living systems, which seems marvelous.’… The problem emerges at the point of transition from micro- to macro-evolution, on which point Szathmáry and Maynard Smith, both convinced supporters of an all-embracing theory of evolution, nonetheless declare that: ‘There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens.’ ”

(Ratzinger here refers to the argument, often made by intelligent design theorists, that organic life reveals an “irreducible complexity” that cannot be ascribed to mechanisms of chance.)

The distinction between “micro-” and “macro-evolution” is apparently one Ratzinger began to make in the 1980s, after hearing a series of lectures at the Gustav Siewarth Academy, a small Catholic academy in Germany’s Black Forest. Dominique Tassot, head of a group of European Catholic intellectuals critical of evolutionary theory, told National Catholic Reporter that German Catholic intellectual Alma von Stockhausen has related that Ratzinger concluded macro-evolution is “impossible” based on this experience. Von Stockhausen is the founder of the Gustav Siewarth Academy and a long-time Ratzinger associate.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Micro-evolution” refers to developmental changes within a species, while “macro-evolution” is the transition from one species to another on the basis of mutation and selection. Some critics of evolution concede the former but dispute the latter, and Ratzinger has voiced support for this view.

Well, let’s see what the Cardinal said:

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.
Cardinal Ratzinger, Report of the International Theological Commission

Common descent of all living things is as macro as you can get in evolution. And the Cardinal says it’s “virtually certain.” Looks like someone’s taken advantage of your trust in them.

Pope Benedict writes:
**The commission’s document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul’s 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that “the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.” **

Good for him. Scientists applaud this acknowledgment that science cannot deny the supernatural. Any “theory” orf any kind that explicitly denies divine providence is not science and is worthless as a scientific theory. Darwin’s theory, for example does not deny divine providence, explicitly or otherwise. In fact, Darwin acknowledged that God created life as a religious belief, so he could hardly have denied God in his science.

This Pope, in spite of a few misunderstandings here and there, seems to be the most scientifically knowledgeable in recent times.

 

[edwest2]

To The Barbarian,

No one cares what Darwin believed. This is plainly evident in the “keep your religion out of my public school science class.”

In Human Persons Crreated in the Image of God, part 69, it clearly states that a random evolutionary process without divine providence simply cannot exist. This is a statement of fact. However, this statement of fact clearly shows the biology school textbook is missing critical information. Information that is vital to all Christians.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

To The Barbarian,

No one cares what Darwin believed. This is plainly evident in the “keep your religion out of my public school science class.”

In Human Persons Crreated in the Image of God, part 69, it clearly states that a random evolutionary process without divine providence simply cannot exist. This is a statement of fact. However, this statement of fact clearly shows the biology school textbook is missing critical information. Information that is vital to all Christians.

Peace,
Ed

Evolution isn’t random.

 

[edwest2]

Yes, it is. Random mutation and natural selection are insufficient, according to the Catholic Church, to do the job. Second, Pope John Paul II stated that such a process, without including divine providence, cannot ground the dignity of man, i.e., establish man’s relationship to God.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

No one cares what Darwin believed.

You, for example, obsess a great deal about it.

This is plainly evident in the “keep your religion out of my public school science class.”

It’s that darned thing about religious freedom, again. There are still a few nations that don’t have it. Which of them do you think is better than ours.

In Human Persons Crreated in the Image of God, part 69, it clearly states that a random evolutionary process without divine providence simply cannot exist.

That’s perfectly O.K. with science in general and evolutionary theory in particular.

This is a statement of fact. However, this statement of fact clearly shows the biology school textbook is missing critical information.

Fortunately, there are other places where such things are appropriate and available to preach.

Information that is vital to all Christians.

Yep. It’s not the public school’s job to preach religion. If they did, you certainly wouldn’t like it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Evolution isn’t random.

Yes, it is. Random mutation and natural selection are insufficient,

He’s right, Ed, it isn’t random. A random process plus a non-random process is a non-random process. Would you like to learn why?

 

[Namesake]

Yes, it is. Random mutation and natural selection are insufficient, according to the Catholic Church, to do the job. Second, Pope John Paul II stated that such a process, without including divine providence, cannot ground the dignity of man, i.e., establish man’s relationship to God.

Peace,
Ed

No, you are wrong, evolution is not random. Mutations can be random but random mutations can’t explain the rate of change in allele frequency that has been observed in evolution within certain gene pools. Random mutations must carry impossible mathematical features that make evolution impossible. We know that natural selection doesn’t follow the same mathematics and it is not only possible but it is the way evolution happens.

Evolution doesn’t/can’t say anything one way or the other about divine providence.

 

[edwest2]

You, for example, obsess a great deal about it.

It’s that darned thing about religious freedom, again. There are still a few nations that don’t have it. Which of them do you think is better than ours.

That’s perfectly O.K. with science in general and evolutionary theory in particular.

Fortunately, there are other places where such things are appropriate and available to preach.

Yep. It’s not the public school’s job to preach religion. If they did, you certainly wouldn’t like it.

I don’t think you can read my mind. Your political and ideological purpose here is clear.

Darwin’s religious belief about evolution will never see the inside of a public school science classroom. God is forbidden.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

No, you are wrong, evolution is not random. Mutations can be random but random mutations can’t explain the rate of change in allele frequency that has been observed in evolution within certain gene pools. Random mutations must carry impossible mathematical features that make evolution impossible. We know that natural selection doesn’t follow the same mathematics and it is not only possible but it is the way evolution happens.

Evolution doesn’t/can’t say anything one way or the other about divine providence.

The concept of evolution cannot say anything but scientists do, and that is the problem. Cardinal Schoenborn has made it clear that most science today is ideology, not science. Are you aware of this? Are you also aware that the Catholic Church has a document that specifically tells Catholics that divine providence must be added to the science? This is the appropriate place to bring up this fact to my fellow Catholics.

Peace,
Ed