Creation vs. Evolution poll II

[Oolon_Colluphid]

edrazz:

The design and complexity of the natural world - has the “appearance” of design (intelligently planned construction) but this is an illusion according to them. Evolution theory is an attempt to explain nature’s design without a designer (i.e. God).

So tell me… if we can deduce a designer from the presence of design, what can we deduce about the nature of the designer from the nature of his designs?

If we can tell anything about the nature of a literal designer, it has to include that it is an incompetent fool, or a sadist, or presumably both.

 

[petra]

No, it is not.
There are two components to the mechanism that Darwin and Wallace proposed (and which has been expanded in the light of genetics into ‘neo-Darwinism’). One is random: mutations.

But the other, natural selection (more accurately, natural filtering) is the absolute opposite of random.

You misunderstood me. I did not mean to imply that natural selection was not one of the mechanisms of Darwin’s theory. I meant, rather, that the mechanism of random mutations was the error in his theory. And I suggested another explanation that is compatible with science and the Bible.

 

[GoodME]

buffalo:

Who should be the interpreter - the Magisterium or us personally?

The Magisterium, of course. This is not something people can do personally.

 

[petra]

No, it is not.
There are two components to the mechanism that Darwin and Wallace proposed (and which has been expanded in the light of genetics into ‘neo-Darwinism’). One is random: mutations.

But the other, natural selection (more accurately, natural filtering) is the absolute opposite of random.

In rereading my post, I can see that I misspoke. I did not mean to imply that natural selection was an error in Darwin’s theory. Yes, natural selection is clearly observable. In my post, I added natural selection as the secondary event in Darwin’s process, but it looked as if I was lumping that into the category of error.

To clarify, I am trying to differentiate the mechanisms of variety, not filtering. Darwin’s mechanism for variety is purely random mutations: chance plus time. With this model, 18 billion years is not nearly enough time for the world to have evolved as it is. And, to be truthful, it is entirely improbable—so much so that we can say it is impossible.

In contrast, the mechanism of variety suggested by Gerald Schroeder is that of super DNA (from God’s special creation in the first life form), which prompts features to quickly emerge in species in relatively few generations, given the right environmental conditions. In this model, natural selection is also a filter.

There is a degree of randomness in the latter process, but God’s design steers it and moves it. This is not unlike a contrast of God’s sovereignty and our free will. The two do not contradict each other. God is at work in our life, guiding us to an eternal life with Him. But we also have a free will, which creates some wiggle room in our life experience. Some of our choices are good some are bad. But God’s grace continues to work behind the scenes, sometimes gently and sometimes dramatically, to guide us to Him. God also guided nature to him with the purpose their would ultimately be a creature in which He could perform special creation. The creation of man was not about the body. It is totally about the soul and spirit.

 

[PhilVaz]

Oolon << If we can tell anything about the nature of a literal designer, it has to include that it is an incompetent fool, or a sadist, or presumably both. >>

Good objection, and I think its good evidence for evolution by natural selection, or at least that “creation” is severly “fallen.” I remember in the 1997 PBS Firing Line debate, the philosopher-evolutionist Michael Ruse asking the intelligent-design advocate Michael Behe this question, “Did God design the complex parasites?” Behe didn’t have a good response other than to appeal to the “problem of evil.”

Ruse quipped, “So this means creationists get all the ‘good’ things, and evolutionists all the ‘bad’ things? Is that it?”

Phil P

 

[buffalo]

It is interesting to note that recent research has found that parasites can be helpful to humans, especially in the gut.

So parasites can contirbute to harmony.

And why is it that the environmentalists ger real nervous when a snake or bug is threatened with extinction by man’s progress. They claim that it has a profound effect on the ecosystem.

 

[petra]

alarcon79:

We can also be agreement I think that God is incapable of false witness. If this premise is true and natural revelation is testimony of God creation, then there should be no inconsistency between God’s creation and the evidence we find in nature that speaks to the history of creation. Would a God who is Truth, leave countless false indicators of a Old Earth pointing overwhelming pro-evolution (or at least the appearance of distinct species of over countless eons.)

 

[Chris_W]

Oolon Colluphid:

So tell me… if we can deduce a designer from the presence of design, what can we deduce about the nature of the designer from the nature of his designs?

If we can tell anything about the nature of a literal designer, it has to include that it is an incompetent fool, or a sadist, or presumably both.

If I understand Oolon’s point correctly, he is saying that from his perspective (which he presents as relying only on his evaluation of scientific empirical data) he concludes that if there is a God, then God must be an incompetant fool or a sadist, for he sees an apparent lack of intelligent design in some aspects of nature (or a deliberate intent on causing misery).

While this is an offensive statement, especially on a Christian web-site, and it does show the true personal impact of the theory of evolution, his statement has shed some more light on the Evolution versus Christianity debate. Most interesting to me is the complete lack of response from those on this thread who claim to be both Christian and supporting the theory of evolution.

“Christian evolutionists” (ignoring what I see as a contradiction in terms) are quick to argue with Christians in defense of evolution, but are you not able to argue with an evolutionist in defense of God? Could it be that Oolon does indeed display the true evolutionist position?

If the two are compatible, then I should expect to see a defense of God (Intelligent Design) posed by the Christian evolutionists.

 

[Chris_W]

Guided Evolution.

I still hear Christians argue that perhaps God used evolution to create. But wouldn’t this mean that God is more the animation of nature? The theory of evolution says that biological diversity occurs by natural means. So for us to argue that God is using evolution to create, it seems to me this would be Pantheism (God is the animation of the universe), but not Christianity.

 

[PhilVaz]

ChrisW << he concludes that if there is a God, then God must be an incompetant fool or a sadist, for he sees an apparent lack of intelligent design in some aspects of nature (or a deliberate intent on causing misery). >>

You can add “incompetent” also to how Ken Miller (a Catholic biologist, author of Finding Darwin’s God) would describe a designer who is responsible for 99% of his “intelligent designs” going extinct (which is a fact of the fossil record as we know it).

Both Popes Pius XII (more reserved) and John Paul II (more emphatic) have said evolution is compatible with Catholic theology. That should end the debate on that point at least for the Catholic. What would be more interesting is for the creationists (whether old or young earth) to engage the scientific data presented by the evolutionists in this and the other threads.

PIUS XII: “For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.” (encyclical Humani Generis, 1950)

JOHN PAUL II: “Today, almost half a century after the publication of the [Humani Generis] Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than a hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.” (Message to Pontifical Academy of Science, October 22, 1996)

Translation: evolution is probably true folks, deal with it.

Also I recommend the pages of the two Millers: biologist Ken (Catholic) and geologist Keith (evangelical Christian)

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

ChrisW << but are you not able to argue with an evolutionist in defense of God? Could it be that Oolon does indeed display the true evolutionist position? >>

I don’t see a need to argue against evolution, since I don’t think it disproves God’s existence. Its the creationists who think that. There are some theological objections to evolution that theists like me need to deal with, and some interpretations of Genesis, etc. but the existence of God is well established philosophically and rationally in my opinion. But I’m no philosopher.

I would engage Oolon on his atheism, but this is a separate topic from his views on science, which I think are quite good.

Oolon can start with answering all the stuff on William Lane Craig’s site, and demolish all the theistic arguments in the Kreeft/Tacelli Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Remember that Catholic philosopher Kreeft says evolution is okay as noted in an earlier thread. Craig tends to favor “intelligent design” theory.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

ChrisW << So for us to argue that God is using evolution to create, it seems to me this would be Pantheism (God is the animation of the universe), but not Christianity. >>

Um, No. Pantheism can be defined simply as “All is God, God is All.” That is, God is everything, God IS creation. That’s not what theistic evolutionists or intelligent design advocates state. They state (there are various nuances) basically that God is indeed “transcendent” to His creation, but intervened in His creation at whatever point, at least at the Big Bang, the beginning of the universe, perhaps at the “creation” of first life, the first cell, or a creature here or there (the latter is more the “progressive creationist” or old earth creationist view). God also intervenes in His creation when a miracle occurs.

Christianity makes the distinction then between Creator and creature, and so do theistic evolutionists. Pantheists are more akin to the “New Age” or Hindu belief: that God is All (pantheism), and God is one (monism). So there is no confusion here. Nice try though.

Phil P

 

[Chris_W]

PhilVaz:

That’s not what theistic evolutionists or intelligent design advocates state. They state (there are various nuances) basically that God is indeed “transcendent” to His creation, but intervened in His creation at whatever point, at least at the Big Bang, the beginning of the universe, perhaps at the “creation” of first life, the first cell, or a creature here or there (the latter is more the “progressive creationist” or old earth creationist view).
Phil P

Okay. But if God only created the first living cell, then how do you reconcile the idea that God created Man? This is what I don’t understand. If evolution is true, then God perhaps instigated life in general (perhaps the first cell), but then kinda sat on the side lines while nature took it course. But wouldn’t this mean that God didn’t actually create man?

I am not trying to argue with you PhilVaz. I am trying to understand you. I cannot accept evolution until my concerns are resolved. And I am still unsettled about where you stand. (It is disconcerting to me that Oolon mocks God and your response is “good point”).

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Oolon Colluphid:

So tell me… if we can deduce a designer from the presence of design, what can we deduce about the nature of the designer from the nature of his designs?

If we can tell anything about the nature of a literal designer, it has to include that it is an incompetent fool, or a sadist, or presumably both.

Not at all. He just has an inordinate fondness for beetles.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

This is mainly for Chris, who on the original thread, now most unfortunately closed, was asserting that abiogenesis is a fundamental part of evolution but who never actually demonstrated to us in explicit terms where and why abiogenesis is a nomological statement underlying evolutionary theory. I merely wondered, being the curious person I am, if Chris was going to be so good as to do that for us, or if his silence on the matter indicates that he has abandoned this argument.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

PhilVaz:

JOHN PAUL II: “Today, almost half a century after the publication of the [Humani Generis] Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than a hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.”

QED. This to me, is what is most interesting about the opposition amongst self-proclaimed Catholics on this board, who resist evolutionary biology (albeit on vague, rhetorical grounds with no data ever advanced in defense of their assertions that it is a fallacious model for the diversity of life). In rejecting evolutionary biology, they are in effect contravening Papal law, which has in the form of not one but two encyclicals, stated that evolutionary biology with the admixture of ontological disparity, is perfectly compatible with the Catholic faith. Now, as one raised in a devout Polish Catholic home, I know some little about the role of the Vatican in the Catholic faith. The Pontiff is God’s ambassador on Earth, and the Church the repository of the Revelation. To contradict Papal law is to contradict Holy law. Those here who are Catholics, or claim to be so, and insist that the Pope is wrong regarding evolution, have defied Papal law, have flouted the authority of the Pontiff and effectively stated that they are more closely attuned to the Divine will than is John Paul II. One must wonder on what grounds they call themselves Catholic, given such heretical, iconoclastic proclivities. Indeed, they are dangerously close to becoming Protestants in their wanton disregard for the word of the Pope and his offices. One must almost conclude that their opposition to evolution has little to do with the Catholic faith, the name of which has been affixed in this instance to a purely personal and rhetorical standpoint to lend it an air of credibility.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

PhilVaz:

Both Popes Pius XII (more reserved) and John Paul II (more emphatic) have said evolution is compatible with Catholic theology. That should end the debate on that point at least for the Catholic. What would be more interesting is for the creationists (whether old or young earth) to engage the **scientific data **presented by the evolutionists in this and the other threads.

Precisely, which is something they have conspicuously failed to do all along. They have also failed to provide any data supporting any of their assertions about the inability of evolutionary biology to explain the diversity of life and the origin of morphological novelties and provided no data to support any explicit alternative hypothesis.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[edrazz]

mjdonnelly:

In the Bible when it says God created, it doesn’t say how He created everything.

The bible does teach “how”::yup:
Genesis 2:21-22 “So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.”
The “how” is important because it relates us to the “why”. The literal one flesh union of Adam and Eve forms the basis upon Jesus’ teaching on marriage.
Matt 19:4-6, “Haven’t you read, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female,' and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ ? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
The “how” of Adam’s origin
Genesis 1:7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Explains the “why” of our end.
JOB 34:15 all mankind would perish together and man would return to the dust.

During Lent “for dust you are and to dust you will return” would have no meaning apart from the historic creation of Adam.

 

[otto22]

Did we evolve from chimps, or some other form of primate? Most likely yes.

We are primates, so this statement doesn’t mean much. We tend to evolve our environment more than vice versa. Although, I must admit, I have evolved from a hairy youth to a not-very-hairy old guy.

In the Bible when it says God created, it doesn’t say how He created everything.
Uh, yes it does.

 

[Christian5]

First off, before I say anything, I just want the athiests and everyone else in here to know that I believe in evolution (God-guided)! I think it is amazing, beautiful, mysterious, and it gives me all the more respect for God.

But I’m sorry to say, it cannot be PROVEN! Not yet at least. And before Oolong or anyone else refers me to “talk/orgins,” I shall let you know that I have already been there. But even that site does not clearly show and demonstrate a CLEAR-CUT proof of evolution. Although is does show alot of evidence that greatly harmonizes and gives credit to it, but stll doesn’t prove anything. The MAGORITY of the fossil record does not favor evolution. Yes transitional forms have been found, and alot more than I think six day literalist realize, and I personaly believe those fossils are accurate transitionals, yet NONE can demonstrate a fish DIRECTLY into an amphibian, an amphibian DIRECTLY into a reptile, a reptile DIRECTLY into a bird and/or mammal, and even the hommid fossils Oolong continues to show and boast about still do not show a monkey or ape DIRECTLY into a man! Not to mention the DNA of an ape or monkey is very simular to a human so that makes it more diffulcult to tell compared to a fish into a reptile etc.

And although the vitamin C issue Oolong mention on the other poll was intersting, it’s also common sense. What do you expect when our DNA is 95-99% simular towards monkeys?