Creation or Evolution

[anthony022071]

[The Barbarian]

Well, let’s see what the Cardinal said:

Cardinal Ratzinger was stating the scientific account,not his own belief,as I’ve taught you several times before.

The paragraph starts out: 63. According to the widely accepted scientific account,…

Common descent of all living things is as macro as you can get in evolution. And the Cardinal says it’s “virtually certain.”

Virtually certain according to the scientific account,not according to the Church.

Looks like someone’s taken advantage of your trust in them.

Like who? Do you have any evidence for this?

Good for him. Scientists applaud this acknowledgment that science cannot deny the supernatural.

What the pope said is: “It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II 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.”

Any “theory” orf any kind that explicitly denies divine providence is not science and is worthless as a scientific theory.

Methodological naturalism explicitly denies supernatural causes a priori,on the ground that they cannot be tested. That is the reason for the word “naturalism” – it is not simply “methodical”.

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.

Darwin acknowledged a Creator in reference to the theory,but it does not make the theory any less naturalistic.

“Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.”
(“Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought” E. Mayr, Scientific American, pg. 82-83, (July 2000),

“It was Darwin’s greatest accomplishment to show that the directive organization of living beings can be explained as the result of a natural process, natural selection, without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent…[Darwin’s] mechanism, natural selection, excluded God as the explanation…”
(Francisco Ayala, “Darwin’s Revolution,” in Creative Evolution?!, eds. J. Campbell and J. Schopf (Boston, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1994), pp. 4-5,

 

[Namesake]

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

Then you should welcome scientific inquiry into religion. A big problem might be the ability to change if science shows religion to be wrong about something. Do you think religious people would be willing to do that?

 

[edwest2]

“change” Change what exactly? Are you referring to the various attempts to reinterpret Genesis to fit science? Or the attempts to turn it into allegory or myth?

I think the thing every Catholic needs to ask is What is the end goal? I have read about the Second Enlightment attempt. I have read about the “alien hiss” of religion on a secular humanist forum. I have seen the study by Nature magazine that says most scientists do not believe in God.

I am reminded of Communism in the 1920s, except, this time, it will be the scientific community acting instead of the State. The goal now, as then, the elimination of all religious and superstitious beliefs from among the people. A propaganda campaign to that end. And then, a “new man” will emerge.

Karl Marx “knew” what had to be done, and afterwards, things would ‘naturally’ sort themselves out. This did not happen. I recommend the book Stamping Out the Virus about the Russian revolution. It is Bolsheviks and Mensheviks all over again.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

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 was stating the scientific account,not his own belief,as I’ve taught you several times before.

See above. He says it’s virtually certain. And he doesn’t say it’s the scientific account. He relates the scientific account of the Big Bang. But he says that common descent is virtually certain. And he explains why. I restored the context in the quote you edited, below:

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since.

Not exactly what you wanted us to think, um?

Barbarian observes:
Common descent of all living things is as macro as you can get in evolution. And the Cardinal says it’s “virtually certain.”

Virtually certain according to the scientific account,not according to the Church.

See above. Nice try. BTW, if you want to disagree with the Pope on this matter, you can do it; it’s science, not a matter of faith or morals.

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.

Barbarian chuckles:
Looks like someone’s taken advantage of your trust in them.

Like who?

Whoever told you that nonsense. See above; the Pope has said common descent is virtually certain.

Do you have any evidence for this?

The Pope’s own statement.

It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II 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.

Methodological naturalism explicitly denies supernatural causes a priori,on the ground that they cannot be tested. That is the reason for the word “naturalism” – it is not simply “methodical”.

Sorry, no. Methodological naturalism is unable to deny the supernatural. Remember, they must explicitly deny the role of divine providence. “Explicitly” means they say it.

Barbarian observes:
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.

Darwin acknowledged a Creator in reference to the theory

No. The origin of life is not part of his theory.

but it does not make the theory any less naturalistic.

It merely reinforces what the Pope said; evolution is consistent with our faith, so long as the theory does not explicitly deny divine providence.

“It was Darwin’s greatest accomplishment to show that the directive organization of living beings can be explained as the result of a natural process, natural selection, without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent…[Darwin’s] mechanism, natural selection, excluded God as the explanation…”

(Francisco Ayala, “Darwin’s Revolution,” in Creative Evolution?!, eds. J. Campbell and J. Schopf (Boston, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1994), pp. 4-5,

Yep. It means that science can investigate natural phenomena without using God as an explanation. It does not mean that it denies divine providence. Ayala, BTW, is a devout Catholic, who accepts evolution in the same way the Pope does.

You might as well denounce plumbers, because plumbing manuals exclude God as a cause of hydraulics.

You won’t, because you don’t feel threatened by hydraulics. But it really doesn’t matter.

 

[edwest2]

Plumbing manuals, cookbooks and hydraulics say nothing about who we are, evolution does. This will always be the issue.

The Pope began by saying “According to…” The Church’s interest in evolution is ongoing but it holds to certain key divinely revealed truths. Like Cardinal Schoenborn said, most science today is ideology, not science.

God bless,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

[Orogeny]

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.

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.

.

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

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

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

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

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.

Rigth, this is a self imposed fliter that scientists wear that limits their understanding. Go figure.

 

[buffalo]

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

That seems to be what is coming from the Altenburg 16 - bye bye natural selection, hello self organization.

 

[The_Barbarian]

That seems to be what is coming from the Altenburg 16 - bye bye natural selection, hello self organization.

Not likely. For example, David Sloan Wilson has written:
**The spots on a guppy might seem parochial, but they are famous among biologists as a case study of evolutionary analysis. They can be explained primarily as adaptations in response to two powerful selective forces: predators remove the most conspicuous males from the population, whereas female guppies mate with the most conspicuous males. The interaction between these two selection pressures explains an impressive amount of detail about guppy spots — why males have them and females don’t, why males are more colorful in habitats without predators, and even why the spots are primarily red when the predators are crustaceans (whose visual system is blind to the color red), as opposed to fish (whose visual system is sensitive to the color red). Guppy spots could have been selectively neutral or a byproduct of some other trait, but that’s not the way the facts fell. **
skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-07-04.html

Darwin would have been proud.

And F. John Odling-Smee:
Niche construction should be regarded, after natural selection, as a second major participant in evolution.
tinyurl.com/62ypnh

Seems like this participant is rather sure natural selection is primary in evolution.

Those were the first two participants I checked. Maybe it’s just luck, but I suspect it isn’t.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Plumbing manuals, cookbooks and hydraulics say nothing about who we are, evolution does. This will always be the issue.

No. We are not the bodies we occupy. Evolutionary theory can never define who we are. This is why you don’t understand why plumbing, cooking, evolution, physics, and photography are methodologically naturalistic.

The Pope began by saying “According to…”

And then he said what he thought:

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.

The Church’s interest in evolution is ongoing but it holds to certain key divinely revealed truths. Like Cardinal Schoenborn said, most science today is ideology, not science.

Since the Cardinal offered no instances or evidence, it’s difficult to see what he meant by that. Certainly, he’s absurdly wrong if he thinks modern science isn’t science. He made some almost hilariously wild misstatments:

Regarding Darwin’s theory:
**The argument that the whole complexity of life can be explained as mere random process is unreasonable in my opinion. **

Amazing.

The “survival of the fittest” model has become the guiding pattern for free-market economics. But life functions roughly 80 percent in a synergistic and symbiotic way and 20 percent as a struggle. Darwin singled out one aspect, the survival of the fittest. That certainly exists, but it’s by far not the whole of nature. Most things in nature function through synergies and cooperation.

He’s clearly bought into the “Darwinism means nature red in tooth and claw” foolishness. In fact, Darwin pointed out that cooperation and altruism are often useful adaptations for living things.

All his examples of altruism in other animals can be shown to have some kind of pay-off in evolutionary terms. But when he gets to humans, he sees altruism that seems to have no selectie value at all. He alludes in “The Descent of Man” to humans having “spiritual powers” that are inaccessible to science, and he acknowledges that a cold assessment of self-benefit is not only “overwhelming evil”, but a denial of what we are as humans.

No doubt the Cardinal was unaware of these important aspects of Darwinian theory. And hence, his later need to “clarify” what he meant.

 

[edwest2]

Mr. Wilson is another that argues we are simply bags of chemicals motivated by our genes, who can sometimes, maybe, slow down our destructive urges, but as the 20th Century has shown, with millions dead, his theory does not have much weight.

amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385340214/skepticcom-20/104-6491725-8322313?creative=125581&camp=2321&link_code=as1

Applying evolution as a salve on mankind’s inner fault does not appear to be a workable idea since it espouses humanism and shows religion as just another genetically based evolutionary strategy for survival. With nuclear proliferation increasing, I don’t think evolutionary psychology is the real answer
.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

To The Barbarian,

Evolutionary Psychology certainly tells us who we are.

books.google.com/books?id=dQ5MGDvn8eIC&dq=evolutionary+psychology&pg=PP1&ots=6aaQ-YoMk9&source=citation&sig=-jKFsQuVxB7XjLExz9yCbBuiHM8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=11&ct=result

We are programmed by our genes and then our environment, nothing more. Our primary goal and purpose is to breed successfully, nothing more. Anything we do between birth and death are directed to the goal of successful reproduction for ourselves and our tribe, nothing else.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

We are programmed by our genes and then our environment, nothing more. Our primary goal and purpose is to breed successfully, nothing more. Anything we do between birth and death are directed to the goal of successful reproduction for ourselves and our tribe, nothing else.

Darwin disagreed. His theory certainly didn’t say any of that.

Maybe it’s your version of ID?

 

[buffalo]

Not likely. For example, David Sloan Wilson has written:
**The spots on a guppy might seem parochial, but they are famous among biologists as a case study of evolutionary analysis. They can be explained primarily as adaptations in response to two powerful selective forces: predators remove the most conspicuous males from the population, whereas female guppies mate with the most conspicuous males. The interaction between these two selection pressures explains an impressive amount of detail about guppy spots — why males have them and females don’t, why males are more colorful in habitats without predators, and even why the spots are primarily red when the predators are crustaceans (whose visual system is blind to the color red), as opposed to fish (whose visual system is sensitive to the color red). Guppy spots could have been selectively neutral or a byproduct of some other trait, but that’s not the way the facts fell. **
skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-07-04.html

Darwin would have been proud.

And F. John Odling-Smee:
Niche construction should be regarded, after natural selection, as a second major participant in evolution.
tinyurl.com/62ypnh

Seems like this participant is rather sure natural selection is primary in evolution.

Those were the first two participants I checked. Maybe it’s just luck, but I suspect it isn’t.

We will just wait and see then.

But Salthe goes further. He told me the following:

“Oh sure natural selection’s been demonstrated. . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. . . . Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is just what happened to happen.”

continuing…Susan Mazur…

When I called Fodor to discuss his article, he joked that he was now in the Witness Protection Program because he’d been so besieged following the LRB piece. But we met for coffee anyway, on Darwin’s birthday, as frothy snowflakes floated to ground around Lincoln Center. After a cappuccino or two, Fodor summed things up saying we’ve got to build a new theory and “all I’m wanting to argue is that whatever the story turns out to be, it’s not going to be the selectionist story”.
Fodor also told me that “you can’t put this stuff in the press because it’s an attack on the theory of natural selection” and besides “99.99% of the population have no idea what the theory of natural selection is”.

 

[edwest2]

To The Barbarian -

Darwin is dead and additions have been made to his theory. If you read through the google.books result I linked to, you’ll see that our genes and only our genes, allowed for increased brain size, selection for an even bigger increase in brain size, and, then “modern” man, who, due to his large brain, killed millions of people in the last century. What this has to do with survival is questionable. I think it does not address the fundamental problem within each of us.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

from - AN EXPOSÉ OF THE EVOLUTION INDUSTRY

Some of the Altenberg 16 or A-16, as I like to call them, have hinted that they’re trying to steer science in a more honest direction, that is, by addressing non-centrality of the gene. They say that the “Modern Evolutionary Synthesis”, also called neo-Darwinism – which cobbled together the budding field of population genetics and paleontology, etc., 70 years ago – also marginalized the inquiry into morphology. And that it is then – in the 1930s and 1940s – that the seeds of corruption were planted and an Evolution industry born.
I broke the story about the Altenberg affair last March with the assistance of Alastair Thompson and the team at Scoop Media, the independent news agency based in New Zealand. (Chapter 2, “Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution?”)
But will the A-16 deliver? Will they help rid us of the natural selection “survival of the fittest” mentality that has plagued civilization for a century and a half, and on which Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are based, now that the cat is out of the bag that selection is politics not science? That selection cannot be measured exactly. That it is not the mechanism of evolution. That it is an abstract rusty tool left over from 19th century British imperial exploits.
Or will the A-16 tip-toe around the issue, appease the Darwin industry and protect foundation grants?

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that the first two participants he checked are Darwinian selectionists)

We will just wait and see then.

Yep. Darwin’s theory has been modified before, but the basic points of his theory have been repeatedly modified. My guess is the “niche theory” will be added to the Modern Synthesis if its predictions are verified.

"Oh sure natural selection’s been demonstrated. . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. . . . Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is just what happened to happen."

Hmmm…let’s look at horses. The evolution of horses from a little multi-toed browser of forest vegetation to a large running animal with stiff spine, limited leg movement, and beefed up teeth occurs just as the forests are receding, the grasslands expanding, and tougher grass and fewer places to hide favor a big, stiff-bodied grazing animal with continuously growing teeth.

Not only that, but when a few horse populations found their way into areas with considerable forest, they became smaller and more adapted to browsing.

You’d have to be a little dense to think of that as “caprice.” After all, it’s not a bad act, evolving just what is needed as it becomes useful. Unless you believe in evolution fairies, there isn’t much but natural selection to explain this.

**When I called Fodor to discuss his article, he joked that he was now in the Witness Protection Program because he’d been so besieged following the LRB piece. **

Sounds like he’s joking. I hope so. The “I have this wonderful new theory, but the establishment is holding me back.” stuff. Yeah.
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Probably not.

 

[Namesake]

from - AN EXPOSÉ OF THE EVOLUTION INDUSTRY

Some of the Altenberg 16 or A-16, as I like to call them, have hinted that they’re trying to steer science in a more honest direction, that is, by addressing non-centrality of the gene. They say that the “Modern Evolutionary Synthesis”, also called neo-Darwinism – which cobbled together the budding field of population genetics and paleontology, etc., 70 years ago – also marginalized the inquiry into morphology. And that it is then – in the 1930s and 1940s – that the seeds of corruption were planted and an Evolution industry born.
I broke the story about the Altenberg affair last March with the assistance of Alastair Thompson and the team at Scoop Media, the independent news agency based in New Zealand. (Chapter 2, “Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution?”)
But will the A-16 deliver? Will they help rid us of the natural selection “survival of the fittest” mentality that has plagued civilization for a century and a half, and on which Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are based, now that the cat is out of the bag that selection is politics not science? That selection cannot be measured exactly. That it is not the mechanism of evolution. That it is an abstract rusty tool left over from 19th century British imperial exploits.
Or will the A-16 tip-toe around the issue, appease the Darwin industry and protect foundation grants?

If the gene isn’t the most basic unit of evolution and if natural selection is not the mechanism of change in allele frequency, what is.

 

[buffalo]

(Barbarian notes that the first two participants he checked are Darwinian selectionists)

Yep. Darwin’s theory has been modified before, but the basic points of his theory have been repeatedly modified. My guess is the “niche theory” will be added to the Modern Synthesis if its predictions are verified.

"Oh sure natural selection’s been demonstrated. . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. . . . Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is just what happened to happen."

Hmmm…let’s look at horses. The evolution of horses from a little multi-toed browser of forest vegetation to a large running animal with stiff spine, limited leg movement, and beefed up teeth occurs just as the forests are receding, the grasslands expanding, and tougher grass and fewer places to hide favor a big, stiff-bodied grazing animal with continuously growing teeth.

Not only that, but when a few horse populations found their way into areas with considerable forest, they became smaller and more adapted to browsing.

You’d have to be a little dense to think of that as “caprice.” After all, it’s not a bad act, evolving just what is needed as it becomes useful. Unless you believe in evolution fairies, there isn’t much but natural selection to explain this.

**When I called Fodor to discuss his article, he joked that he was now in the Witness Protection Program because he’d been so besieged following the LRB piece. **

Sounds like he’s joking. I hope so. The “I have this wonderful new theory, but the establishment is holding me back.” stuff. Yeah.
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Probably not.

Barbarian - declare yourself then so I can quote you in the future.

 

[buffalo]

(Barbarian notes that the first two participants he checked are Darwinian selectionists)

Yep. Darwin’s theory has been modified before, but the basic points of his theory have been repeatedly modified. My guess is the “niche theory” will be added to the Modern Synthesis if its predictions are verified.

"Oh sure natural selection’s been demonstrated. . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. . . . Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is just what happened to happen."

Hmmm…let’s look at horses. The evolution of horses from a little multi-toed browser of forest vegetation to a large running animal with stiff spine, limited leg movement, and beefed up teeth occurs just as the forests are receding, the grasslands expanding, and tougher grass and fewer places to hide favor a big, stiff-bodied grazing animal with continuously growing teeth.

Not only that, but when a few horse populations found their way into areas with considerable forest, they became smaller and more adapted to browsing.

You’d have to be a little dense to think of that as “caprice.” After all, it’s not a bad act, evolving just what is needed as it becomes useful. Unless you believe in evolution fairies, there isn’t much but natural selection to explain this.

**When I called Fodor to discuss his article, he joked that he was now in the Witness Protection Program because he’d been so besieged following the LRB piece. **

Sounds like he’s joking. I hope so. The “I have this wonderful new theory, but the establishment is holding me back.” stuff. Yeah.
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Probably not.

STAN SALTHE: NEO-DARWINIANS RISKING 'RIGOR MORTIS’

Population genetics deals with microevolution – the change in gene frequencies from one generation to the next. Even there, some of its versions (e.g., the Dobzhansky-Lewontin school) concern, not evolution per se, but the problem of preventing population extinction.
By being ‘rigorous’ the neo-Darwinians have convinced other scientists of their validity as the foundation discourse of evolution studies, but their ‘rigor’ pertains to issues very far from the interests of most evolutionary biologists, risking ‘mortis’."

then

Stan Salthe, the philosopher and zoologist who brought us the gritty Fodor email chain (Chapter 3 – “Jerry Fodor and Stan Salthe Open the Evo Box”), told me you can’t dismiss the censorship going on in the evolution debate.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Darwin is dead and additions have been made to his theory.

Good thing. Effective theories are enlarged and modified as new evidence is obtained. However the four points of Darwin’s theory remain as valid today as ever.

If you read through the google.books result I linked to, you’ll see that our genes and only our genes, allowed for increased brain size, selection for an even bigger increase in brain size, and, then “modern” man, who, due to his large brain, killed millions of people in the last century.

Probably not. The large skull is apprently due to allometric changes in human development, due to neotony in our late maturation. There is no “large brain” gene.

We don’t know yet exactly why the sutures close so late in human skulls but it allows a much larger brain (chimp skulls close early, and the brain can grow no more)

Genes aren’t magic, Ed. You might want to look up “On Growth and Form” by D’Arcy Thompson. It’s technical, but remarkably understandable for almost any person.

It might help with the “genes are all we are” problem.