Creationism an Option?

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
Sounds like a testable claim. What do you think a transitional would be like?

Did you know that transitionals predicted over 100 years ago have subsequently been found in the fossil record, and important new ones are found almost every month?

Show me. Give me links.

Sure. But first, since you asserted that there are no transitionals, let’s see your definition of the word. I’ll answer your question, you answer mine.

Fair enough?

 

[Contarini]

I was just wondering if, in Catholicism, it is still permissible to hold a literal Creationist view of the world. I believe in Creationism, because the evolutionist and secular claims against it are uncompelling. I know that is permissible for a Catholic to hold a evolutionized view, but I did not know if we are free to choose?

I wouldn’t see why not. What makes you even doubt this?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Donald45,

Just because there are theists who have supported or due support the Theory of Evolution, does not diminish my point.

“Here we have a beautiful explanation for how life comes about… and then Francis Collins and others want to smuggle God back in and say, ‘Oh, well, natural selection was God’s way of doing it.’ He chose the method that made him superfluous. Why bother to postulate him at all, in that case?” - Richard Dawkins

This is a typical Dawkins straw man. God is not “superfluous” if life evolved by natural selection. God is not a scientific hypothesis. Aquinas said it best in his reply to the first objection in ST 1, question 2, article 3: “Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause.”

Dawkins, of course, thinks he has disproved this with his talk of “blind watchmakers.” Lots of people disagree with him.

This is why I worry about ID. People are routinely confusing ID with the view just summarized from Aquinas. They are two completely different things. I worry that ID may in the long run help the Dawkinses more than it helps Christianity.

Edwin

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Donald45,

Just because there are theists who have supported or due support the Theory of Evolution, does not diminish my point.

“Here we have a beautiful explanation for how life comes about… and then Francis Collins and others want to smuggle God back in and say, ‘Oh, well, natural selection was God’s way of doing it.’ He chose the method that made him superfluous. Why bother to postulate him at all, in that case?” - Richard Dawkins

Evolution is the warm blanket atheists tuck themselves into bed at night with.

It was interesting that you took the time to read my entire post yet didn’t actually respond to anything in it other than one sentence I could have, admittedly, worded better. I would like to hear your response to the rest of it.

What about the rest? Why fight so hard to make such and unstable theory a part of Christian, or even scientific, thinking? There are many scientific thinking Christians who look at the impossibilities of evolution to point out that God is still needed… but why defend a theory, that claims to be so scientific, when it has so many holes to begin with?

Most theories have holes in them. Regardless, evolutionary theory still best explains the data we have accumulated. It is the basic model used in multiple disciplines. The moment a better theory better reflects the evidence, evolutionary theory will be dropped. I find that unlikely since if anything the assurance that it is the correct basic model has only increased over the last 150 years. The genome project really ended the debate, for all practical purposes.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Like I said before, throwing the “fundamentalist” label around is childish and moronic. I am Catholic. Also, how are fossils God’s test to man? They support Creationism, since there are no transitional forms.

You can squawk all you like but when you decide to avoid the truth and accept creationism you place yourself in league with unchurched, unschooled fundies who btw despise Catholics.

Fundies in years past used to claim that dinosaur bones were only fakes that God deliberately placed on the earth to be discovered. It was a test of faith whether one would follow one’s senses and brain or whether one would adher to what was totally contradictory to the evidence and follow the bible. It has been dropped as an argument.

There are plenty of transitional forms as you put it. This has been argued here forever. We have dismantled every single YEC argument.I invite you to prove by YEC…It’s impossible since it has no science behind it.

To deny the plain facts is to either deliberately refuse to learn or it is simple personal deception, a denial of what you know to be true. If you can do that, you operate quite well with a split brain.

See my blog, right column…there is a science resources that lists impeccable scientific sites that are all linked to evolution and age of the planet.

One is free to believe what one needs to of course. The Church of course makes no such claim of YEC. It accepts evolution in its basic premises. So, you can believe in YEC but of course the last 3 popes have not.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

How do you explain the highly structured form of a Hurricane, then? BTW, the 2nd LOT does not prohibit order rising from disorder. Boltzmann himself was a Darwinist. Why not show us your calculations that demonstrate your argument? Thermodynamics is a statistical science, so you’ll have to use the Boltzmann equations.

I sure would like to see the 2nd LOT applied to that one. Show us.

Great. Show us the numbers. Be sure to explain how entropy enters into it. Hint: check the Shannon equation, and why entropy is not disorder.

There are probably 8 threads on this recently. All the evidence has been set out for the YEC folks but they are not interested in facts. They have a belief, and go to fundie YEC sites, lift material which have no scientific efficacy, and post it. Mostly they have stopped the 2nd law stuff, they’ve pretty much stopped abiogenesis arguments, and the God did it as a test theory. OF course they understand very little of this material in the first place not being scientists as almost none of us are. I simply know that 150 years and millions of scientists later suggests they know what they know.

If you look at the credentials of these pseudo-scientists very few even have degrees in the discipline they speak to. They seem to feel that a science BA in anything qualififes them to speak, as an expert. The fundie creationist of course is only looking for what will agree with his personal need for the bible to be “inerrent” to every tiddle.

 

[Donald45]

Just because there are theists who have supported or due support the Theory of Evolution, does not diminish my point.

To the extent that you’ve claimed that atheism is the motivating factor in one’s affirmation of evolution, the fact that the overwhelming majority of working theistic scientists affirm evolution directly diminishes your point.

“Here we have a beautiful explanation for how life comes about… and then Francis Collins and others want to smuggle God back in and say, ‘Oh, well, natural selection was God’s way of doing it.’ He chose the method that made him superfluous. Why bother to postulate him at all, in that case?” - Richard Dawkins

Dawkins is a writer of popular-level books on evolutionary science who happens to be an outspoken atheist. This no more makes evolution guilty by association than does the fact that some physicists are atheists negate the atomic theory as “an atheistic ideology.” Certainly, Dawkins is more prone than most to mix theological statements with those of science, thereby straying outside the proper bounds of science, as the above quotation demonstrates. Dawkins believes that evolution disproves the existence of God. However, this is not a scientific opinion, but a theological (or philosophical) one that is not itself a necessary part of the concept of organic evolution. So, strictly speaking, Dawkins should not here be making a theological statement in the name of science. This is an error that so-called “scientific creationists” should avoid as well.

Evolution is the warm blanket atheists tuck themselves into bed at night with.

Again, this is simply a “guilt by association” argument that doesn’t necessarily apply in all ( or even most) cases. The fact that some atheists attempt to use evolution to support their theological opinions doesn’t thereby render evolution itself false as a scientific theory.

It was interesting that you took the time to read my entire post yet didn’t actually respond to anything in it other than one sentence I could have, admittedly, worded better. I would like to hear your response to the rest of it.

A casual reading of your post (#23) reveals at least ten errors of fact, each of which has been addressed ad infinitum in popular scientific literature. This being the case, I didn’t see the point of rehashing all of this readily-available information here. If I were to respond to each point of contention, it would take several posts, and more time than I can spare, to adequately reply to each claim. Perhaps you could choose one or two points that you consider most central to your overall position, and I could respond to those?

Why fight so hard to make such and unstable theory a part of Christian, or even scientific, thinking?

This is an example of the point made above: In this one sentence, there are at least two errors. First, from a purely scientific standpoint, the concept of evolution is anything but “unstable,” but is rather one of the most strongly-attested theories in all of the sciences. Second, in no way do I wish to make evolution a part of my “Christian thinking.” Evolution is a scientific conclusion, not a theological conviction, and the two should be carefully distinguished.

There are many scientific thinking Christians who look at the impossibilities of evolution to point out that God is still needed…

The statement that “God is needed” is a theological conviction, not a scientific conclusion, and it simply cannot be considered a valid part of any scientific theory. Of course, Dawkins’ claim that “God is not needed” is likewise an essentially theological statement that has no place in a properly scientific model of the natural world.

In addition, even if the Christian thinkers you mention could prove that evolution (a scientific conclusion) were somehow “impossible,” it would certainly not thereby demonstrate that the creationist position (a theological conviction) is true.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[inthecloud]

"Let’s be realistic. Evolution was created by atheists, in the hopes of killing God. The whole reason such poor science has made it this far is that there is so much emotion attached to it. Emotion that is often fueled, admittedly so, by over-zealous theists who often don’t want to change their view either.

I don’t believe we need to take Genesis literally, nor do I believe that Creationism is scientific. Evolution and Creationism are both emotionally driven “jumping the gun” agendas that leap out of the path of science. There is still much to be discovered, and in due time we will sit back and laugh at our “enlightened” Theory of Evolution as we now laugh at those who thought the world was flat."

Darwin belived in God during his research and once wanted to be a minister in the Church of England. He mentions the word creator several times in the Origin of the Species.
He lost his faith later in life becasue the illness and death of one of his daughters, not because his theory of evolution.
The idea that evolution makes God superfluous is Dawkins propaganda, too bad Creationists are playing his game.

I have right now the Language of God and is most excellent book by Francis Collins. If you read you will find a scientific case for belief. Not for atheism. YEC is harmful because if forces people to deny science.

So here I quote someone as how to read Genesis:

2 Peter 3:8 With the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day.

God is beyond time and space.

St Augustine: “What kind of days these were, is extremely difficult or perhaps impossible for us to conceive” City of God.
“With these facts in mind, I have worked out and presented the statements of the book of Genesis in a variety of ways according to my ability and in interpreting words that have been written obscurely for the purpose of stimulating our thought, I ahve not brashly taken my stand on one side against a rival interpretation which might possibly be better”. The Literal Meaning of Genesis.

In my opinion the non fundamentalist reading of Genesis of the TE will have been approved by the Saint today. YEC required deniying all modern science.

 

[The_Barbarian]

There are probably 8 threads on this recently. All the evidence has been set out for the YEC folks but they are not interested in facts.

Understood. I’m just asking one of them, any of them to step up and show us the numbers they keep claiming they have.

They have a belief, and go to fundie YEC sites, lift material which have no scientific efficacy, and post it.

What I don’t understand, is why they crib this stuff from the sites of people who fear and detest Catholics.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Understood. I’m just asking one of them, any of them to step up and show us the numbers they keep claiming they have.

What I don’t understand, is why they crib this stuff from the sites of people who fear and detest Catholics.

Well your last statement is the one that truly irks me. The only other group in all of christendom that claims belief in YEC are the unchurched, sola scriptura proponents who are churches of one, and a few of the TV evangelical rightwingers. These groups both absolutely trash Catholics every chance they get, calling us the “beast” of Revelation and idol worshippers, etc. So we have here Catholics supporting the same stuff groups who hate us do. Should they come to power, they will surely persecute the Church. And radical Islam also believes in YEC…I mean these are your debate buddies?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Well your last statement is the one that truly irks me. The only other group in all of christendom that claims belief in YEC are the unchurched, sola scriptura proponents who are churches of one, and a few of the TV evangelical rightwingers. These groups both absolutely trash Catholics every chance they get, calling us the “beast” of Revelation and idol worshippers, etc.

Right. So why would a Catholic take an argument from people like that? Makes no sense to me.

So we have here Catholics supporting the same stuff groups who hate us do.

Yep. Seems a little crazy to me.

Should they come to power, they will surely persecute the Church.

Many of them would.

And radical Islam also believes in YEC…

Radical Islam. I have collegues who are devout Muslims who have no problem at all with evolution.

I mean these are your debate buddies?

No. What makes you think they are?

You do know that I’m a Catholic, and accept evolution as God’s creation, right?

Apparently, none of them are going to show us those numbers.

 

[inthecloud]

Look I left Catholicism for deism, but now I’m willing to give it a second chance.
In my country most protestants are fundangelicals and all of them are creationist. I will never join a church that opposed evolution.
So is either returning to the church despite the difference I have in some moral teachings and policies or going EOC or Anglican. I do not know the position of the EOC on evolution and the other group had become too liberal to my tastes.

But I also found very weird that some people in this forum CC are willing to openly contradit CC teachings and use material from people that are enemies of the CC and sometimes fall into sectarian bigotry toward CC church members.

 

[Metaron]

Barbarian asks:
Sounds like a testable claim. What do you think a transitional would be like?

Did you know that transitionals predicted over 100 years ago have subsequently been found in the fossil record, and important new ones are found almost every month?

Sure. But first, since you asserted that there are no transitionals, let’s see your definition of the word. I’ll answer your question, you answer mine.

Fair enough?

No, I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. I want to see the evidence from both sides-- I’m not fully decided. Just at this point, I do not see any evidence of macro-evolution. Please, I am not set in my belief. Perhaps, if there is evidence, I could change sides.

But first, what kind of evolution are we defining?

Classical Darwinism

In the 19th century context in which Darwin’s Origin of Species was first received, “Darwinism” came to stand for an entire range of evolutionary (and often revolutionary) philosophies about both biology and society. One of the more prominent approaches was that summed in the phrase “survival of the fittest” by the philosopher Herbert Spencer, which was later taken to be emblematic of Darwinism even though Spencer’s own understanding of evolution was more Lamarckian than Darwinian, and predated the publication of Darwin’s theory. What we now call “Social Darwinism” was, in its day, synonymous with “Darwinism” — the application of Darwinian principles of “struggle” to society, usually in support of anti-philanthropic political agendas, such as genocide. Another interpretation, one notably favored by Darwin’s half-cousin Francis Galton, was that Darwinism implied that because natural selection was apparently no longer working on “civilized” people it was possible for “inferior” strains of people (who would normally be filtered out of the gene pool) to overwhelm the “superior” strains, and corrective measures would have to be undertaken — the foundation of eugenics.

Neo-Darwinism

According to the modern synthesis as established in the 1930s and 1940s, genetic variation in populations arises by chance through mutation (this is now known to be sometimes caused by mistakes in DNA replication) and recombination (crossing over of homologous chromosomes during meiosis). Evolution consists primarily of changes in the frequencies of alleles between one generation and another as a result of genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection. Biologists, still, however, cannot explain why all known mutations have led to the deterioration of the species, not the improvement, as supposed by theory of mutation as a conduit for evolution of species to occur.
The modern evolutionary synthesis continued to be developed and refined after the initial establishment in the 1930s and 1940s. The work of W. D. Hamilton, George C. Williams, John Maynard Smith and others led to the development of a gene-centric view of evolution in the 1960s. The synthesis as it exists now has extended the scope of the Darwinian idea of natural selection to include subsequent scientific discoveries and concepts unknown to Darwin, such as DNA and genetics, which allow rigorous, in many cases mathematical, analyses of phenomena such as kin selection, altruism, and speciation.

A particular interpretation most commonly associated with Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene, asserts that the gene is the only true unit of selection.[17] Dawkins further extended the Darwinian idea to include non-biological systems exhibiting the same type of selective behavior of the ‘fittest’ such as memes in culture.

The Hopeful-Moster Theory

Hopeful Monster is the colloquial term used in evolutionary biology to describe an event of instantaneous-speciation, saltation, or systemic mutation, which contributes positively to the production of new major evolutionary groups. The memorable phrase was coined by the German born geneticist Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958), who believed that small gradual changes could not bridge the gigantic divide between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

In Richard Goldschmidt’s seminal contribution to evolutionary biology, The Material Basis of Evolution, he writes: “The change from species to species is not a change involving more and more additional atomistic changes, but a complete change of the primary pattern or reaction system into a new one, which afterwards may again produce intraspecific variation by micromutation.” (1940, pp. 205-206)

His thesis however was universally rejected and widely ridiculed within the biological community, which favored the neo-Darwinian explanations of R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane and Sewall Wright.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Right. So why would a Catholic take an argument from people like that? Makes no sense to me.

Yep. Seems a little crazy to me.

Many of them would.

Radical Islam. I have collegues who are devout Muslims who have no problem at all with evolution.

No. What makes you think they are?

You do know that I’m a Catholic, and accept evolution as God’s creation, right?

Apparently, none of them are going to show us those numbers.

I’m sorry barbarian. I certainly didnt mean YOU…lol…I was speaking of those that espouse the YEC myth. They place themselves in bed with radical islam and the worst of the fundies. I agree with you completely that MOST Muslims believe as I do about evolution.

 

[Metaron]

… YEC is harmful because if forces people to deny science
…YEC required deniying all modern science.

Your observation of science. We can’t keep saying this, as boths sides claim it. Both Creationism and Evolution are both still theories. Scientists can err. Therefore, what has been considered “proven” is not necessarily over-and-done with. Both Creationist Theory and Evolutionist Theory are both theories. Both are still opened to be questioned, as to their truthfulness.

Someone else could just as well say,

… Macro-evolution is harmful because if forces people to deny science…
…Macro-evolution required denying all modern science.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Look I left Catholicism for deism, but now I’m willing to give it a second chance.
In my country most protestants are fundangelicals and all of them are creationist. I will never join a church that opposed evolution.
So is either returning to the church despite the difference I have in some moral teachings and policies or going EOC or Anglican. I do not know the position of the EOC on evolution and the other group had become too liberal to my tastes.

But I also found very weird that some people in this forum CC are willing to openly contradit CC teachings and use material from people that are enemies of the CC and sometimes fall into sectarian bigotry toward CC church members.

I recently learned from another source that this site was started by what are known as Catholic Evangelicals. I’d never heard of such an animal before I came here. I’d only heard of some Catholic pentacostals. These Catholic Evangelicals as best I can discern are aligned with the protestant rightwing evangelicals on literalism for the most part of the bible, as well as on all social sexual platforms. According to Protestant Evangelical groups, these rightwing groups (not referring to the Catholic version) are a small minority within the Evangelical movement. The same is true of Catholicism. This ultra rightwing group is exceedingly small and as you have noted often thinks the Vatican is not nearly conservative enough. I think its a resurgence of the I hate Vatican II folks we saw 40 years ago.

As I’ve said repeatedly here, when you look at catechesis and RCIA material you find that for the greatest part it reflects modern biblical exegesis and modern theological interpretations. This is true throughtout the country. Here you will read tons on the return to the Latin Mass, which I love btw. But when you actually look for tridentine masses, you find them exceedingly hard to find unless you live in a large city. The ultra right is highly magnified on the web, way beyond its impact in the real world.

 

[Metaron]

I’m sorry barbarian. I certainly didnt mean YOU…lol…I was speaking of those that espouse the YEC myth. They place themselves in bed with radical islam and the worst of the fundies. I agree with you completely that MOST Muslims believe as I do about evolution.

So, if someone disagrees with you, you immediately label them or goup them with fundamentalists instead of using logical argumentation and scientific evidences?
I’ve said this time and time again: NO THROWING THE FUNDAMENTALIST LABEL AROUND ON THIS THREAD or grouping people that believe Creationism with them. It has nothing to do with either proving evolution or proving Creationism, and therefore, does not belong on this thread. It’s a cheap-shot.

 

[Metaron]

I recently learned from another source that this site was started by what are known as Catholic Evangelicals. I’d never heard of such an animal before I came here. I’d only heard of some Catholic pentacostals. These Catholic Evangelicals as best I can discern are aligned with the protestant rightwing evangelicals on literalism…
But when you actually look for tridentine masses, you find them exceedingly hard to find unless you live in a large city. The ultra right is highly magnified on the web, way beyond its impact in the real world.

[Edited by Moderator] present evidence for your side.

 

[jmcrae]

I was just wondering if, in Catholicism, it is still permissible to hold a literal Creationist view of the world. I believe in Creationism, because the evolutionist and secular claims against it are uncompelling. I know that is permissible for a Catholic to hold a evolutionized view, but I did not know if we are free to choose?

Yes. We are free to interpret our understanding of Genesis with only two caveats in mind:

1. Adam and Eve were one real man and one real woman, the first humans ever to live on earth, and the only two of their generation. They are the parents of the entire human race; there is no human being who does not have for his ancestors both Adam and Eve, through at least one of their children.
2. God created all that is seen and unseen; there is nothing in existence that God did not create - and God called it “good.”

 

[Orogeny]

Your observation of science. We can’t keep saying this, as boths sides claim it.

Well, his observation, my observation and scientist’s observations. Funny how scientists observe this but non-scientists don’t yet some claim that we should give the same weight to both.

Both Creationism and Evolution are both still theories.

No, that is incorrect. Evolution is a fact. How it occurs is a theory in the scientific sense which means that it is not just an opinion. It is based on the scientific evidence. Creationism is “just a theory”, in other words, not based on scientific evidence.

Scientists can err.

Of course they can. So what?

Therefore, what has been considered “proven” is not necessarily over-and-done with.

Please elaborate. Give me an example of a scientific theory that has been proven.

Both Creationist Theory and Evolutionist Theory are both theories.

OK, if you insist on this, please provide some scientific evidence for creationism.

Peace

Tim