Creation vs Evolution

[JGC]

faith.org.uk/Publications/CurrentMag/edSeOc04.htm

Editorial.
Editorial from the FAITH Magazine Sept-October 2004

Evolution And The Doctrine Of Creation

The theory of evolution is not an article of faith, of course. We may accept it or not, while still remaining good Catholics, a fact which creationists too often seem to forget. You do not need to be a ‘creationist’ in order to defend the truth that the world is created. In fact this position should more properly be called ‘special-creationism’, for what it really teaches is that every life form is made by a discrete act of special creation. This actually undermines the original Judeo-Christian insight that formed the seedbed of modern science in the first place. That insight was that creation has an integrity, consistency and potency of its own under God. Far from this detracting from God’s glory, it manifests more powerfully than ever the power and majesty of his creative Mind.

Evolution, rightly understood, confirms this truth and deploys it in a depth and detail that St. Basil and St. Augustine could barely have imagined, and which they would have greeted with delight. Of course we must answer the likes of Dawkins and the Darwinists. And we can do so now without retreating into a pre-scientific huddle. Those who reject the basic truth of evolution, apart from anything else, are missing a beautiful opportunity to present God again to the world through the majesty of his Logos: transcendent, perfect intellect which decrees all creation in one Law of Wisdom and providential Love that leads ultimately to communion with himself incarnate in Christ Jesus.

 

[Dismas2004]

hecd2:

I’m sure you’ll be able to favour us all with the name of that ‘mathematician’. You see, it really isn’t a very strong argument to come up with a vague story like this that as far as we can see is a total fabrication. Who, then, are you talking about?
Well, you can talk to me - I’m a scientist. I can tell you that evolutionary biology is a science just like any other and it’s fully testable.

Did you not read the last paragraph in my post? “Sorry I can’t give more detail about these, seeing that these are issues I wrestled with some 7 years ago. I’m sure though if you look at some of the latest literature on the debate, you’ll come across them.”

Well actually it was Nebraska
This is a well attested story. Two fossil teeth was found. They were incorrectly attributed to a fossil hominid by a scientist called Osborn. Most other palaeontologists were extremely sceptical. An illustration of ‘Nebraska Man’ and his family appeared in a popular magazine (The Illustrated London News) not in a serious scientific journal. The fossil never received wide acceptance in the scientific community. By 1927, Osborn and his collegue Gregory had withdrwn their claim. The self-correcting nature of science had prevailed. ‘Nebraska Man’ had a very short reign and absolutely no influence on the general thrust of human palaeontology. How, in heaven’s name is this supposed to disprove evolution? If this is your favourite story about evolution and palaeontology I pity you. Read the whole story here:
talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

No need to pity me. I beleive in evolution, it’s a fact, but Darwinism is just plain fluff. Do you teach Biology, at what level. What exactly kind of scientist are you. Please enlighten us. As for being able to give you more information, like I said this was 7 years ago that I researched all this. I don’t have a clue, but obviously my memory has been good to me since I got the State of Nebraska right!

I can only speak for myself, I don’t believe that we came from Monkeys. I have a friend that’s achemical engineer and she doesn’t either, oh yea, she has a Ph.D in Biologytoo! She tells me that those that insist on defending Darwinsim’s “Monkey” theory as she refers to it, have been miseducated and we should pray for them. So I do. We are praying for you.

 

[SocaliCatholic]

hecd2:

Dear Socali, well, I very much appreciate and respect your conclusions.

We differ in this respect. When I see that something is true in natural matters with the plain evidence of my senses (scientific experimental instruments are no more than extensions of our senses to which all data must ultimately be presented) I prefer to believe in a causal and uncapricious universe that operates according to laws that we can discover. If that leads to apparent conflicts with scripture, I always prefer to seek the figurative and far more powerful truth that lies beneath the apparent literal contradiction.

Alec,

From your perspective as a evolutionist who deals with creationists on a regular basis such as myself, what would you like to see creationists do to further understand the theory of evolution with respect to our differing beliefs.

How much education would you suppose is plausable or neccessary to come to a rational belief in evolution, such as you have.

 

[hecd2]

Dismas2004:

Did you not read the last paragraph in my post? “Sorry I can’t give more detail about these, seeing that these are issues I wrestled with some 7 years ago. I’m sure though if you look at some of the latest literature on the debate, you’ll come across them.”

Why are you shouting? If you present anecdotes in support of your view, then it is your job to reference them. If you can’t even remember the details of the evidence that led you to your conclusion, if all you do is to present half-baked, fabricated, misremembered and misinterpreted anecdote, don’t be surprised if others fail to take your views seriously.

No need to pity me.

But I do.

I beleive in evolution, it’s a fact, but Darwinism is just plain fluff.

Thank you for your considered opinion, which is, I am sure, built on a thorough knowledge, and a thoughtful assessment of the facts.

Would you honour us with an explanation of what you understand ‘Darwinism’ to be, and why, in your informed view, it is, as you put it so delicately, ‘plain fluff’?

As for being able to give you more information, like I said this was 7 years ago that I researched all this. I don’t have a clue,

Quite so.

but obviously my memory has been good to me since I got the State of Nebraska right!

Congratulations! It is about the only thing that you did get right.

I can only speak for myself, I don’t believe that we came from Monkeys. I have a friend that’s achemical engineer and she doesn’t either, oh yea, she has a Ph.D in Biologytoo! She tells me that those that insist on defending Darwinsim’s “Monkey” theory as she refers to it, have been miseducated and we should pray for them. So I do. We are praying for you.

I see, a PhD biologist (who is also a chemical engineer!) who refers to the Theory of Evolution as the ‘Monkey Theory’ and who believes that those who defend it, do so because of ‘miseducation’? Well, of course, given that kind of authority, who am I to argue?

Alec
tinyurl.com/49qod

 

[hecd2]

SocaliCatholic:

Alec,

From your perspective as a evolutionist who deals with creationists on a regular basis such as myself, what would you like to see creationists do to further understand the theory of evolution with respect to our differing beliefs.

How much education would you suppose is plausable or neccessary to come to a rational belief in evolution, such as you have.

Dear Socali,

You have again come up with very interesting questions for which I have no glib answers.

First let me say, that if you are wedded to the view that a particular religious perspective (say literal biblical innerrancy or Catholic dogma) will always take precedence in cases of apparent conflict with the findings of science, then it really doesn’t matter how much you know, because you can always invoke a special miracle to disarm inconvenient facts.

Nevertheles, it is true that people who actually understand the Theory of Evolution, understand its mechanisms, and are familiar with the underlying evidence are vastly more likely to be in the ‘evolutrion’ camp than the ‘special creation’ camp. The overwhelming majority of professional scientists accept the fact of evolution, with an even more overwhelming majority amongst biologists. This is brought home to me by the fact that I rarely if ever encounter creationists who have a good knowledge of biology, genetics, molecular biology, palaeontology etc (not to say, that they don’t exist, but they are quite rare).

Most (but not all) creationists do not arrive at their view on the basis of a reasoned and knowledgeable analysis of the evidence. Most creationists decide, for religious reasons, a priori, that evolution cannot be true, and then seek evidence to disprove it - this hardly represents a reasoned and knowledgeable conclusion.

So, is it possible for a non-scientist to take a reasoned view on evolution and what would one have to learn? I think that an intelligent person with good general education can get enough information from reading popular but serious boooks on science to take that view. If she was really dedicated, she could work through an advanced undergraduate textbook on Evolutionary Theory, such as Mark Ridley’s or Douglas Futuyama’s - but they are weighty and that’s going further than I think she would need to. I don’t think that he’d need to be a professional reading the scientific journals every week. He’d need to get a basic grounding in molecular biology, genetics and evolutionary theory, and then he should have enough evidence to take a view. I have listed some of my favourite popular books here:
evolutionpages.com/resources.htm

I wrote an extremely short and very elementary introduction to the Theory here:
evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm

Alec

 

[Dismas2004]

hecd2:

Why are you shouting? If you present anecdotes in support of your view, then it is your job to reference them. If you can’t even remember the details of the evidence that led you to your conclusion, if all you do is to present half-baked, fabricated, misremembered and misinterpreted anecdote, don’t be surprised if others fail to take your views seriously.
But I do.
Thank you for your considered opinion, which is, I am sure, built on a thorough knowledge, and a thoughtful assessment of the facts.

Would you honour us with an explanation of what you understand ‘Darwinism’ to be, and why, in your informed view, it is, as you put it so delicately, ‘plain fluff’?
Quite so.

Congratulations! It is about the only thing that you did get right.

I see, a PhD biologist (who is also a chemical engineer!) who refers to the Theory of Evolution as the ‘Monkey Theory’ and who believes that those who defend it, do so because of ‘miseducation’? Well, of course, given that kind of authority, who am I to argue?

Alec
[tinyurl.com/49qod](http://tinyurl.com/49qod)

Shouting, where did that come from. I did not know it was possible to shout via a computer. I merely Highlited and bolded some comments that I thought you may have skipped or skimmed over. In regards to the rest of your email, just a few comments. I can not, nor can anyone, become an expert on everything. That being said I defer to the experts on this deabte. I had gone through this 7 years ago, come to a solid conclusion and discussed it the whole time with my friend. One thing I’m good at however is Psychology, and I know thisIn simple language)

1)People who get overly passionate about a topic or issue, usually will not budge on the issue even if shown concrete evidence to the contrary.

2)People will start to degrade another person’s thoughts or ideas when they feel threatened or their position is threatened.

3)Poeple who are secure in their views, need not to push them on others, but instead will allow the truth to be the messenger of hope.

4)People will often avoid questions they are not comfortable in answering.

You may pity me, but I do not pity you. You have a strong faith in what you beleive. That’s good. I offer only my opinion. If you don’t agree, OK. Will you change my mind. Probably not, with degrading comments about myself and my friends. I also, though you talk well and appear reasonable, you have avoided my question and request for your creditials. You see, when two friends talk, they don’t talk like scientist, they convery their communicaiton in everyday language, at times even adding things to make it funny, i.e. Monkey Theory. I will continue to pray for you in what ever you need. I appreciate your comments, for they are illuminating for all. Take care and God bless.

 

[PhilVaz]

Dismas << You may pity me, but I do not pity you. You have a strong faith in what you beleive. >>

Please, you don’t know a thing about evolution, its clear when you think “Nebraska Man” is good evidence against human evolution. Its embarassingly bad creationist scholarship. Nebraska man has been irrelevant for over 75 years, if it ever was relevant.

Along with the stuff HECD gave you, read all about Nebraska Man here

Conclusion: …Most other scientists were skeptical even of the modest claim that the Hesperopithecus tooth belonged to a primate. It is simply not true that Nebraska Man was widely accepted as an ape-man, or even as an ape, by scientists, and its effect upon the scientific thinking of the time was negligible.

Your modern hominid evidence is here

As for the guy who brings up Darwin’s Black Box once again, Behe is a theistic evolutionist and does not call himself a creationist. He fully accepts not only the ancient earth, but that we humans and chimps had a common ancestor several million years ago (that is, we evolved along with the rest of the animal kingdom). See the evidence in the previous 4.5 billion posts on this topic. Do a search in here for “evolution”

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Dismas << I also, though you talk well and appear reasonable, you have avoided my question and request for your creditials. >>

He’s given them a thousand times. (Well at least once that I can remember). Do a search on HECD2 posts. He has a Ph.D. in some branch of science, I forget which. But its clear he knows his stuff. Check his well-documented evolution pages

Phil P

 

[Jim_ov_Cov]

Who do you trust, God or man? God inspired the Bible; the Bible says 7 days; ergo 7 days is the truth. Why re-invent the wheel?

 

[PhilVaz]

<< God inspired the Bible; the Bible says 7 days; ergo 7 days is the truth. Why re-invent the wheel? >>

God inspired the Bible, the Bible says 6 days. And the Bible says the 7th day is still continuing, which if you are a young-earth creationist, means the 7th day is at least several thousand years long, not 24 hours. Which probably means the other days are not literal 24 hour days.

Do you see any evidence for an ancient earth here? Or did God deceive us, the Creator of the old rocks and the older stars?

See the beginning of this thread for more on 6 vs. 7 days.

Phil P

 

[justinmatter]

i don’t think one has to vote on a topic like this.:nope:
i mean, even the magesterium is silent on the matter (is it not? )
i think the important point is recognising the fact that god is the creator of all. if we agree on that, most of the work is over coz does it really matter how he went about it? he could as well have used evolution as 7x24 hours. right?:tiphat:
the argument, in my view, is on a few points-

1. the atheistic view of evolution which rejects god as the author of creation
2. the idea that if evolutuion were true, man would be no more than an extension of a chimp
   i don’t agree with that- i fervently believe that man was made in the image and likeness of god. if evolution is true, then god obviously (to my mind) controlled all evolution and used it to create man in his image and likeness and gave to man an immortal soul that is different from all others in the created world.
   

 

[buffalo]

justinianplague:

i mean, even the magesterium is silent on the matter (is it not? )

Not really.

 

[Sistersamm]

What an on fire debate! A thought for y’all.

Anyone know about their “Dark Ages” history? Follow me here for a bit. Ptolemy was a Greek scientist who lived about 100 years after Christs death. He studied the heavens. He was the first scientist to try to make a complete discription of the stars and planets. He assumed that the earth was the center of the universe and the planets and stars revolved around it in circles. His ideas became very popular. So popular in fact that his theroy was in fashion for nearly 1600 years because the Roman Catholic Church refused to hear of any other ideas on the subject. It would dishonor Ptolemy who was rightly considered a great scientist. He was popular because he fit many scientists preconcieved ideas of how things should be. Most people believed that the earth was the most important planet so his ideas just made good sense. The church reasoned that since God created man, the earth must be the most important thing in the universe. Now, this is not mentioned in the bible but that didn’t stop the church from holding up scientific advancement for nearly 1600 years.
This example shows us that we as church should not hold onto an idea simply because it fits with preconcieved ideas. Science is built on data not on a persons beliefs. The acceptance or rejection of a scientific proposition then, should rest solely on the data, nothing more. Ptolemy was wrong. Darwin is too.
Darwin’s work finished the change that began in the “Enlightenment”. As Darwin’s ideas caught on in the scientific community, those who wanted to ignore the authority of scripture were empowered. After all they reasoned, if science can explain how we got here without ever referring to a Creator, then why should science continue assuming that the Creator exisits? But even wrong ideas can help advance science. Even though Darwin was wrong about much of what he proposed he still advanced biology enormously. He was right that living organisms change. Scientists used to believe that every type of creature that exists today has existed through out history. Darwin masterfully showed that immutability of the species wasn’t true. He showed that all species came from some original ancestor, through a process that he called natural selection. This idea revolutionized the study of living creatures.
Darwin himself had a difficulty in his own hypothesis however. In his book The Origin of Species, 6th ed, 1962, Collier Books, NY, p.462 he says,
“Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and extinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide than they otherwise would have been, yet has done scarecly anything in breaking the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, imtermediate varieties; and this not having been affected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many ojections which can be raised against my views.” Notice here he says, there should be “fine, intermediate varieties” of fossils in between species. The fact that there weren’t was a problem he called “grave” because evolution says that one species eventually leads to another. If evolution really occured there should be many intermediate links. The fact that only a few questionable ones can be found is strong evidence against evolution.
Anyway, thats my rant. All this information can be found in Exploring Creation with General Science by Dr. Jay L. Wile. Excellent resource.

 

[PhilVaz]

SisterSam << If evolution really occured there should be many intermediate links. The fact that only a few questionable ones can be found is strong evidence against evolution. >>

Your post was good up to this point. This has been dealt with at length in previous creation-evolution threads. There are plenty of transitionals, and they aren’t questionable. Previous threads went into excruciating detail, I will provide the popular links

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils
Theobald’s Evidences
My summary of these two articles

While we don’t find billions of transitionals, we find plenty. Also as Theobald points out, there are many lines of evidence for “common descent” or macroevolution – transitionals in the fossil record, biogeography, molecular sequences, vestiges/atavisms, homology/morphology, paralogy/analogy, the phylogenetic tree, etc.

People who continue to bring up “no transitionals” obviously haven’t read any of the other threads on the topic. I’ve been here since the beginning (May 2004), read those 4.5 billion creation-evolution posts, so I know.

Phil P

 

[hecd2]

Dismas2004:

Shouting, where did that come from. I did not know it was possible to shout via a computer. I merely Highlited and bolded some comments that I thought you may have skipped or skimmed over.

And posted in 24 point. You know what I’m talking about

In regards to the rest of your email, just a few comments. I can not, nor can anyone, become an expert on everything. That being said I defer to the experts on this deabte.

In that case, you should instantly accept the modern Theory of Evolution.

One thing I’m good at however is Psychology, and I know thisIn simple language)

1)People who get overly passionate about a topic or issue, usually will not budge on the issue even if shown concrete evidence to the contrary.

An excellent description of almost all creationsists.

2)People will start to degrade another person’s thoughts or ideas when they feel threatened or their position is threatened.

A little like your claiming the whole vast field of modern evolutionary theory is ‘plain fluff’?

3)Poeple who are secure in their views, need not to push them on others, but instead will allow the truth to be the messenger of hope.

So you would not advocate education?

4)People will often avoid questions they are not comfortable in answering.

Like this question that I asked you, for example?:
“Would you honour us with an explanation of what you understand ‘Darwinism’ to be, and why, in your informed view, it is, as you put it so delicately, ‘plain fluff’?”

I also, though you talk well and appear reasonable, you have avoided my question and request for your creditials.

Because I will not get drawn into the fallacy of the argument from authority. If pushed, my credentials are impeccable, but that is not why anyone should accept what I say. They should accept it on its own merits.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[rschermer2]

Apologia100:

I couldn’t vote for any of the options because I am more of the mindset that God not only kicked it off, but was involved in the process every set of the way. I am not a Darwinian Evolutionist, nor am I a literal Creation Scientist. I believe the truth is more of an amalgamation of the two, leaning more heavily with creationism, because I believe in an almighty God who is intimately involved in His creation.

I tend to think this way as well.

God Bless,
RS

 

[SocaliCatholic]

hecd2:

Dear Socali,

You have again come up with very interesting questions for which I have no glib answers.

First let me say, that if you are wedded to the view that a particular religious perspective (say literal biblical innerrancy or Catholic dogma) will always take precedence in cases of apparent conflict with the findings of science, then it really doesn’t matter how much you know, because you can always invoke a special miracle to disarm inconvenient facts.

Nevertheles, it is true that people who actually understand the Theory of Evolution, understand its mechanisms, and are familiar with the underlying evidence are vastly more likely to be in the ‘evolutrion’ camp than the ‘special creation’ camp. The overwhelming majority of professional scientists accept the fact of evolution, with an even more overwhelming majority amongst biologists. This is brought home to me by the fact that I rarely if ever encounter creationists who have a good knowledge of biology, genetics, molecular biology, palaeontology etc (not to say, that they don’t exist, but they are quite rare).

Most (but not all) creationists do not arrive at their view on the basis of a reasoned and knowledgeable analysis of the evidence. Most creationists decide, for religious reasons, a priori, that evolution cannot be true, and then seek evidence to disprove it - this hardly represents a reasoned and knowledgeable conclusion.

So, is it possible for a non-scientist to take a reasoned view on evolution and what would one have to learn? I think that an intelligent person with good general education can get enough information from reading popular but serious boooks on science to take that view. If she was really dedicated, she could work through an advanced undergraduate textbook on Evolutionary Theory, such as Mark Ridley’s or Douglas Futuyama’s - but they are weighty and that’s going further than I think she would need to. I don’t think that he’d need to be a professional reading the scientific journals every week. He’d need to get a basic grounding in molecular biology, genetics and evolutionary theory, and then he should have enough evidence to take a view. I have listed some of my favourite popular books here:
evolutionpages.com/resources.htm

I wrote an extremely short and very elementary introduction to the Theory here:
evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm

Alec

Alec,

Your point is well-taken. I would definitely agree with you that many creationists are against believing in evolution without using reason or understanding it.

What parts of the Christian faith do you agree with, if any, and why?

 

[hecd2]

SocaliCatholic:

Alec,

Your point is well-taken. I would definitely agree with you that many creationists are against believing in evolution without using reason or understanding it.

What parts of the Christian faith do you agree with, if any, and why?

Dear Socali,

That is a very big question. The shortest answer that I can give is that I agree with the concept that we should care for our fellow-humans, do what we can to help the weak and the poor and do nothing to deliberately injure others. Why? Because I believe that that will make me a better, happier and more fulfilled person.

More fundamentally, I agree with many of the Church’s lessons taught through Scripture and the magisterium, but interpret many of them more figuratively than practising Catholics. As a lapsed Catholic, I have a great affection for the Church and for the good work she does throughout the world. But as an agnostic, I oppose authoritarianism (any attempt to direct me to what I can and cannot hold as natural truth is anathema to me - I will not accede to beliefs that run counter to the plain evidence of my senses or my reason), muddled thinking, and superstition. In the fundamentals of belief, I regard the existence of a God as unlikely, and the whole supernatural domain of heaven, hell, angels, miracles and other phenomena, the existence of which in the human mind can be explained psychologically, as doubtful.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[SocaliCatholic]

hecd2:

Dear Socali,

That is a very big question. The shortest answer that I can give is that I agree with the concept that we should care for our fellow-humans, do what we can to help the weak and the poor and do nothing to deliberately injure others. Why? Because I believe that that will make me a better, happier and more fulfilled person.

More fundamentally, I agree with many of the Church’s lessons taught through Scripture and the magisterium, but interpret many of them more figuratively than practising Catholics. As a lapsed Catholic, I have a great affection for the Church and for the good work she does throughout the world. But as an agnostic, I oppose authoritarianism (any attempt to direct me to what I can and cannot hold as natural truth is anathema to me - I will not accede to beliefs that run counter to the plain evidence of my senses or my reason), muddled thinking, and superstition. In the fundamentals of belief, I regard the existence of a God as unlikely, and the whole supernatural domain of heaven, hell, angels, miracles and other phenomena, the existence of which in the human mind can be explained psychologically, as doubtful.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

Alec,

Thank you for your honesty. It is great to know that you used to be Catholic at one point in time. I will pray that you might come back to Church someday God willing. I would like to further understand your reasoning becuase you are an educated scientist and I am not and my belief is that truth can never contradict truth. Also that our job is to do the best we can to understand the truth. So if you have arrived at some truth that I have not after all your studies it would be of great interest to me.

What would be your reason as to why it should be impossible to put no faith into the teachings of the Catholic Church? If you knew somehow that God existed, would you still not want to have faith in God if you knew God Loves you?

Also if the fact of evolution did indeed occur, then would that would be an objective truth whether or not I am some crazy, uneducated creationist that is in complete denial of all the facts.

 

[Sistersamm]

Phil,

Thanks for the encouragement on my post. I have not been here from the beginnning so I’ve missed some and not taken the time to read it all, a point well taken. Just so I’m clear, I am pro-creation and so is the book I quoted from. Maybe, I wasn’t clear on that one point or miss quoted so I’ll go back in and look at it again so I can be more clear. This is an intresting talk for Catholics. So many of us have no ideas at all, this is encouraging.

Have a great day,