creationism and evolution

[Chris_W]

Anonymous_1:

how is arguing over evolution bring other people to knowledge and faith in the saving power of Jesus Christ?

The theological implications can be large. See Post #33 of this thread for some examples.

Anonymous_1:

Sure i like to get into these heated intellectual discussions, but at times they become like endless geneologies…fruitless…Lets work with what we do know…More will be revealed…
peace

Imagine how many heresies would’ve existed and become widespread, if people took the stance you’re suggesting (it’s not worth arguing about).

I, for one, do find these discussions fruitful and educational. I am not here for any ego issues (it does more harm than good to that apsect of me , as I have been shot down before ), and I would guess several others feel the same. I have been educated by reading other threads I was not involved in as well.

It’s all good, so long as it remains civil.

 

[dcdurel]

I think we have been misled by many into thinking that all scientists agree on evolution without God, that is, evolution by chance alone. This is not true. Evidently at least 40% of scientists believe in a God-directed evolution.
This type of evolution could be accepted by Catholics.

This is what Michael Behe, a top molecular biologist wrote regarding intelligent design.

**"Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism
Response to “Not (Just) in Kansas Anymore” by Eugenie C. Scott, Science (May 2000)" **

Michael J. Behe Science Online
July 7, 2000

Scott refers to me as an intelligent design “creationist,” even though I clearly write in my book Darwin’s Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent.** In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think “evolution occurred, but was guided by God.”** Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. The biological literature is replete with statements like David DeRosier’s in the journal Cell: “More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human” (1). Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that such observations may be on to something objectively correct?
Scott blames “frontier,” “nonhierarchical” religions for the controversy in biology education in the United States. As a member of the decidedly hierarchical, mainstream Roman Catholic Church, I think a better candidate for blame is the policing of orthodoxy by the NCSE and others–abetting lawsuits to suppress discussion of truly open questions and decrying academic advocates of intelligent design for “organiz[ing] conferences” and “writ[ing] op-ed pieces and books.” Among a lot of religious citizens, who aren’t quite the yahoos evolutionists often seem to think they are, such activities raise doubts that the issues are being fairly presented, which might then cause some people to doubt the veracity of scientists in other areas too. Ironically, the activity of Scott and the NCSE might itself be promoting the mistrust of science they deplore."

Notice what Behe says,
"I think a better candidate for blame is the policing of orthodoxy by the NCSE and others–abetting lawsuits to suppress discussion of truly open questions and decrying academic advocates of intelligent design for “organiz[ing] conferences” and "writ[ing] op-ed pieces and books."

Why does the NCSE suppress discussion of truly open questions? Why does the NCSE try to stop advocates of intelligent design for organizing congerences? Where is their tolerance? Why are they trying to censure discussion? What about pluralism?
The answer does seem to be that evolution without God is simply a prop for the philosophy of materialism. Thus they try to suppress the truth that 40% of scientists believe in a God directed evolution and they supress the truth that some of the top astro-physicists believe in intelligent design.

Einstein wrote that he wanted “to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thought; the rest are details.”

 

[Edwin_Taraba]

Steve Andersen:

No, evolution is not a matter of faith There is nothing there to believe. Just things you can measure.

Things you can measure? Like radiometric “dating” for instance? The problem is it is not measuring time it is measuring the ratio between two radioisotopes. Radiometric “dating” measures what the ratio is now and then makes assumptions about what the ratio was when the material was formed without being able to observe or prove what that ratio was at its formation.
It has been shown that varying amounts of radioactive Potassium and its daughter element Argon exist in newly formed rocks. Rocks tested from young volcanoes showed up with varying ages, some millions of years old and some hundreds of thousands and some thousands of years old. If the theory of radiometric dating is correct these rocks should have all dated young (less than 100 hundred years old for some volcanoes and in some other cases only 10 years old, ie Mount St. Helens).
It has been demonstrated through scientific investigation that the quantity of Potassium and Argon at the creation of a rock is an unknown. However, the pseudo science of evolution refuses to acknowledge this and continues to purport false data. The evolutionist allows his/her own bias and belief systems to adversely effect reasoning and scientific interpretations of data.

 

[Edwin_Taraba]

Orogeny:

I’m afraid that you don’t really understand how radiometric dating works. This has been posted before in this thread, but in case you missed it, here is a link to an explanation of radiometric dating by a Christian physicist.

asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

He discusses the K/Ar issues you cite.

Peace

Tim

Thanks for the referenced article. The section on K/Ar dating confirms my claim. Roger Wiens conveniently leaves out information on the subject that has been published and known widely for years.

Following is a quote form the article:

“It is possible to date some rocks by the potassium-calcium method, but this is not often done because it is hard to determine how much calcium was initially present**. Argon, on the other hand, is a gas. Whenever rock is melted to become magma or lava, the argon tends to escape. Once the molten material hardens, it begins to trap the new argon produced since the hardening took place. **In this way the potassium-argon clock is clearly reset when an igneous rock is formed.”

Please note that “Whenever rock is melted to become magma or lava, the argon tends to escape*”,***** is a false statement. This has been shown to be untrue through empirical science. When taking rocks of a known age and subjecting them to this dating technique ten year old igneous rocks are commonly found to have large quantities of Argon trapped inside, quantities that would have taken millions of years to produce through the radioactive decay of Potassium. **

 

[Edwin_Taraba]

Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God

Especially, paragraphs 62, 63, 64 of this document. Here are some important parts:

"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 [around 3.5 to 4 billion years ago]. Phil P

It is NOT certain that all living organisms have descended from the first organism. I would like to point out that if the DNA of two different species have matching or similar sections in their DNA it is not necessarily true that the life forms evolved from a common ancestor. That is not an observed truth. That is an assumption based on a preconceived notion of common descent. An equally valid assumption could be drawn that the creator of the species engineered the life forms utilizing building blocks that are common to all of life. An analogy could be drawn to the building blocks of machines. Metal, plastic, rubber, wheels, gears, belts, electronic circuits, transistors, etc. are built into many various and diverse machines. Just because they have common building blocks in no way indicates those machines evolved one from the other. Each was engineered and built as a unique entity by a creator just as God could have created each snake, chicken, banana, spinach, dinosaur and human as a unique entity which hit the ground running as a fully formed life.
The fact of the matter is both interpretations are possible. Whichever you choose to believe is based on your personal belief system. Creation is not very hard to believe for any Christian who believes that God came to Earth and demonstrated for us the miracle of creation first hand when Jesus created fish, bread and wine instantly, from nothing to something without a single chemical or biological process.

 

[Orogeny]

Chris W:

Why do you beleve the Vatican would disagree? Have you found a flaw in his work? If so, please tell me now, before I get too attached this this beautiful piece of work .

The implication of the article is that Adam and specifically Eve were created rather than evolved. The Vatican has not ruled out the possiblity that evolution is true; therefore, the Vatican doesn’t agree that Eve being literally created from Adam’s side has been taught infallibly by the Church.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Edwin Taraba:

Please note that “Whenever rock is melted to become magma or lava, the argon tends to escape”, is a false statement.

No, it isn’t. It is a completely true and verifiable statement. He didn’t claim that ALL argon escapes, does he?

This has been shown to be untrue through empirical science. When taking rocks of a known age and subjecting them to this dating technique ten year old igneous rocks are commonly found to have large quantities of Argon trapped inside, quantities that would have taken millions of years to produce through the radioactive decay of Potassium.

You left out these two paragraphs that followed the paragraph that you quoted:

However, in reality there is often a small amount of argon remaining in a rock when it hardens**. This is usually trapped in the form of very tiny air bubbles in the rock. One percent of the air we breathe is argon. Any extra argon from air bubbles may need to be taken into account if it is significant relative to the amount of radiogenic argon (that is, argon produced by radioactive decays). This would most likely be the case in either young rocks that have not had time to produce much radiogenic argon, or in rocks that are low in the parent potassium. One must have a way to determine how much air-argon is in the rock. This is rather easily done because air-argon has a couple of other isotopes, the most abundant of which is argon-36. The ratio of argon-40 to argon-36 in air is well known, at 295. **Thus, if one measures argon-36 as well as argon-40, one can calculate and subtract off the air-argon-40 to get an accurate age.

One of the best ways of showing that an age-date is correct is to confirm it with one or more different dating method(s). Although potassium-argon is one of the simplest dating methods, there are still some cases where it does not agree with other methods**. When this does happen, it is usually because the gas within bubbles in the rock is from deep underground rather than from the air. This gas can have a higher concentration of argon-40 escaping from the melting of older rocks. This is called parentless argon-40 because its parent potassium is not in the rock being dated, and is also not from the air. In these slightly unusual cases, the date given by the normal potassium-argon method is too old. **However, scientists in the mid-1960s came up with a way around this problem, the argon-argon method, discussed in the next section.

You see, there are limitations to each dating method. These limitations are well known and legitimate researchers will not rely on a dating method that won’t give valid data because of inherent limitations.

Peace

Tim

 

[MI_Mom]

I am in the middle of reading an excellent book that some of you may be interested in. It is titled Creation Rediscovered: Evolution and The Importance of The Origins Debate. The author is Gerard J. Keane, a faithful Catholic from Australia. It was published by Tan Books and Publishers, Inc. in 1999. It is a thick (about 400 pages) and scientific book (not light reading). It is extremely informative and interesting, though. As a homeschooling parent, I started reading it to know what to teach my children. Now I’m the one getting the education! I highly recommend it. For those of us who aren’t scientists, by profession, I just recommend reading it slowly. By no means should you be hesitant to tackle it, though. The information is too valuable.

 

[PhilVaz]

Mom << As a homeschooling parent, I started reading it to know what to teach my children. Now I’m the one getting the education! I highly recommend it. For those of us who aren’t scientists, by profession, I just recommend reading it slowly. >>

Bad book, you might as well teach your kids that the Flintstones is not a cartoon but a documentary. Denying real science like Keane does is not the way to go.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/dinokid.jpg

You want an education? Read and listen to this debate. At least Behe and Johnson have something interesting to say, Keane does not in my opinion, I’ve seen his stuff online at Kolbe Center for Creation and other places.

Teach them real science, not the Adam and Eve had a pet T-Rex in their backyard kind of science. Then figure out how to reconcile by reading books by Christian folks who accept real science and Christian faith. I don’t know any good Catholic books offhand, except maybe Cardinal Ratzinger’s In the Beginning… but please balance what you are reading with these two books: Coming to Peace with Science by Darrel Falk, and Perspectives on an Evolving Creation edited by Keith Miller.

I’d be interested in what you find in the Keane book that you think is intriguing. He is a young earther in case you didn’t know.

Phil P

 

[john_doran]

Orogeny:

The implication of the article is that Adam and specifically Eve were created rather than evolved. The Vatican has not ruled out the possiblity that evolution is true; therefore, the Vatican doesn’t agree that Eve being literally created from Adam’s side has been taught infallibly by the Church.
Tim

well, the often difficult hermeneutics of the grades of theological certainty aside, that just doesn’t follow; i’m sure the vatican has also not ruled out the possibility that modern biochemistry and relativity theory or something like them are true, without thereby believing themselves to be committed to anything like the position that jesus (or lazarus) didn’t rise from the dead, or that christ didn’t rise bodily from the surface of the earth, and into heaven…

there’s nothing even facially inconsistent with accepting (the possibility of) common descent as a part of a worldview that ***also ***stipulates the occurrence of direct, miraculous “violations” of that hypothesized principle.

 

[Orogeny]

john doran:

well, the often difficult hermeneutics of the grades of theological certainty aside, that just doesn’t follow; i’m sure the vatican has also not ruled out the possibility that modern biochemistry and relativity theory or something like them are true, without thereby believing themselves to be committed to anything like the position that jesus (or lazarus) didn’t rise from the dead, or that christ didn’t rise bodily from the surface of the earth, and into heaven…

there’s nothing even facially inconsistent with accepting (the possibility of) common descent as a part of a worldview that ***also ***stipulates the occurrence of direct, miraculous “violations” of that hypothesized principle.

Maybe you don’t know my position on this, but I would agree completely with that last paragraph. I don’t actually have a problem with Eve coming from Adam’s side from a theological viewpoint. If it happened that way, it would definitely fall under the category of a miracle, which I do believe happen.

My objection to the article, or at least the way it is presented on that particular website, is that the premise of that site is that evolution is false. That article is used to support that position. As I pointed out and you acknowledged, the Vatican has not ruled that evolution is false.

Peace

Tim

 

[oriel36]

john doran:

well, the often difficult hermeneutics of the grades of theological certainty aside, that just doesn’t follow; i’m sure the vatican has also not ruled out the possibility that modern biochemistry and relativity theory or something like them are true, without thereby believing themselves to be committed to anything like the position that jesus (or lazarus) didn’t rise from the dead, or that christ didn’t rise bodily from the surface of the earth, and into heaven…

there’s nothing even facially inconsistent with accepting (the possibility of) common descent as a part of a worldview that ***also ***stipulates the occurrence of direct, miraculous “violations” of that hypothesized principle.

The cartoon concept known as relativity should’nt even exist,it is anti-Christian in nature due to its really ignorant and utterly stupid notions on clocks yet you manage to scramble Jesus into the same sentence as that concept.

The terms such as ‘hypothesized principles’ is empirical goobledygook designed to impress in the absence of anything original or of substance .The empirical principles now known as 'scientific principles 'are in direct conflict with Christian faith,the empiricalist says begin with doubts and end in certainties by removing doubts thereby you cannot prove anything true but you can prove things false.

How far removed that is from Christian faith.I am a Catholic who is horrified at the way my astronomical heritage has been strangled by the empirical tradition where astronomers are little more than messenger boys for mathematical theorists yet the world and the Catholic church permits these relativistic/qm concepts to flourish as though they were achievements.

At least the moderator of sci.astro.research made an attempt to come to terms with an alternative view of Keplerian motion (alternative to the Newtonian view) but it is little consolation given that my Catholic colleagues remain stuck with the cartoon concepts of the early 20th century.

 

[john_doran]

Orogeny:

Maybe you don’t know my position on this, but I would agree completely with that last paragraph. I don’t actually have a problem with Eve coming from Adam’s side from a theological viewpoint. If it happened that way, it would definitely fall under the category of a miracle, which I do believe happen.

fair enough. what you originally seemed to be saying, though, was that the vatican couldn’t both (A) believe that the special creation of eve-from-the-side-of-adam had been infallibly put forth by the church and, at the same time, (B) accept the possibility of evolution…

but you’re apparently not saying that now, if you ever were. so, cool.

 

[john_doran]

oriel36:

The cartoon concept known as relativity should’nt even exist,it is anti-Christian in nature due to its really ignorant and utterly stupid notions on clocks yet you manage to scramble Jesus into the same sentence as that concept.

i can’t tell if you’re mad at me or not, but you really shouldn’t be; i have not only said nothing about my own views on science, but i haven’t saddled the church with any, either - notice that i said only that i am sure that the vatican believes relativity theory or something like it to be *possibly *true.

The terms such as ‘hypothesized principles’ is empirical goobledygook designed to impress in the absence of anything original or of substance .The empirical principles now known as 'scientific principles 'are in direct conflict with Christian faith,the empiricalist says begin with doubts and end in certainties by removing doubts thereby you cannot prove anything true but you can prove things false.

How far removed that is from Christian faith.I am a Catholic who is horrified at the way my astronomical heritage has been strangled by the empirical tradition where astronomers are little more than messenger boys for mathematical theorists yet the world and the Catholic church permits these relativistic/qm concepts to flourish as though they were achievements.

while i understand your concerns, i don’t share them, at least not to the same degree.

 

[oriel36]

john doran:

i can’t tell if you’re mad at me or not, but you really shouldn’t be; i have not only said nothing about my own views on science, but i haven’t saddled the church with any, either - notice that i said only that i am sure that the vatican believes relativity theory or something like it to be possibly true.

.

The Catholic church cannot be lazy on this matter and neither can you as one of its members. Any variant of science/.religion ‘debates’ should not exist and especially not the cursed view that science is one thing and faith based belief is another with their own seperate aims and ends.

Not a single sentence in Genesis permits a person here to ponder whether the author’s intent is literal or metaphor in terms of the development of the Earth and life on it yet you may imagine otherwise.

For far too long I have witnessed people discussing matters they pretend to understand because it follows some empirical consensus but I assure you it all borders on insanity.It should take at most one week to dismantle relativity as a concept yet I am met with total silence from Catholics.

What is the matter ?,do you wish to remain a fool because mathematical theorists have brainwashed you into accepting the pretensious jargon which goes nowhere and does nothing.Do you not even know that why the empirical minset hijacks Genesis to set up a division between faith and investigating natural phenomena when none exists.Investigating natural phenomena always will be a facet of belief,no more and no less.

I don’t need your opinion on ‘science’ for I already know what it is,it follows after the dullards who know no better in investigating natural phenomena or in Spiritual matters.In this respect you are better off being an unbeliever for a while for you most certainly are doing no favors to the apostolic church.Likewise for those who support the empirical view and the fruits of that view such as relativity and qm.

 

[Chris_W]

Orogeny:

The implication of the article is that Adam and specifically Eve were created rather than evolved.

I agree

Orogeny:

The Vatican has not ruled out the possiblity that evolution is true

I agree

Orogeny:

therefore, the Vatican doesn’t agree that Eve being literally created from Adam’s side has been taught infallibly by the Church.

This is not a conclusion that necessarily results from your first two statements. The Vatican has not said it doesn’t agree. Nor has the Vatican said Adam and Eve were not literally created. Nor would this mean the Vatican could not still accept evolution theory in regards to the rest of creation.

The problem I see with Fr. Harrison’s thesis, for some evolutionists, is precisely that he doesn’t rule out evolution as a whole, but does rule out the evolution of Eve, which could probably be expanded by reasoning to include Adam. Making matters worse, for some evolutionists, is that his case seems pretty air tight for the conclusion that the Chuch has in fact spoken infallibly on this matter.

What does this mean for Catholic evolutionists who see in the scientific evidence, the common descent of man? Well, it could seem to suggest Hominiods descended via evolutionary means and became extinct. Then Humans were created by God via special creation. Would this possibility necessarily conflict with any scientific evidence?

The reason this is consoling to me is because I personally couldn’t care less how the rest of creation came about. I just cannot accept that Adam and Eve were the result of evolution or that somewhere in the past, some of us have heritage in soulless hominoid brutes.

So, pending an actual rebuttal of Harrison’s work, I am at peace now believing Eve was the result of special creation, possibly including Adam. , and that the Church has spoken infallibly on the matter of Eve, and that this does not conflict with scientific evidence.

Ahhhhh. Peace at last.

 

[PhilVaz]

Anon1 << Take for instance the bombardier beatle. I will leave it to you to do research as im sure there are two sides to every story. >>

On bomby the beetle, TalkOrigins to the rescue. It was a favorite creationist example of the 70s and 80s used by Duane Gish and others, but has since been answered, or should I say exploded by Dawkins in his books, and here is the TalkOrigins answer

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Evolution of the Bombardier Beetle long

The Bomby Beetle Myth "Exploded" short

Bomby Evolved I am so sorry

When dcdurel and Edwin T both post in the creation-evolution threads, that’s a lot of myths that need exploding. Please people check TalkOrigins first, and yes they are always right. It’s all been asked and answered there.

Phil P

 

[john_doran]

PhilVaz:

On bomby the beetle, TalkOrigins to the rescue. It was a favorite creationist example of the 70s and 80s used by Duane Gish and others, but has since been answered, or should I say exploded by Dawkins in his books, and here is the TalkOrigins answer

Evolution of the Bombardier Beetle long

The Bomby Beetle Myth "Exploded" short

Bomby Evolved I am so sorry

When dcdurel and Edwin T both post in the creation-evolution threads, that’s a lot of myths that need exploding. Please people check TalkOrigins first, and yes they are always right. It’s all been asked and answered there.

though i have to say i admire your enthusiasm for this particular topic, phil, i have to wonder why you think just posting links to talkorigins will be any more effective a tactic than others just posting their own links to creationist websites…

i can tell you that those articles are each singularly unconvincing to me, and i am not a creationst - my only bias is toward good science and a good epistemology which must necessarily provide the philosophical underpinnings for good science.

note that i am not saying they’re wrong, but only that they’re just not very compelling and not even remotely as determinative as you seem to believe them to be.

but whatever - here’s my own contribution to the link-fest:

apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&itemid=2102&cat=5

 

[oriel36]

john doran:

i can’t tell if you’re mad at me or not, but you really shouldn’t be; i have not only said nothing about my own views on science, but i haven’t saddled the church with any, either - notice that i said only that i am sure that the vatican believes relativity theory or something like it to be possibly true.

while i understand your concerns, i don’t share them, at least not to the same degree.

John

I have to press you for an answer on the technical matter I brought up previously,namely that it is really,really bad science to imagine that the Earth rotates through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.

Now,besides a flat Earth or geocentrism,not knowing what the correct value for the Earth rotating on its axis is marginally better that those two yet the scientific community adopt the wrong value and the principles behind that value.

Let me put it another way, how much would you value the statements of a person who believed in a flat Earth,look in the mirror and you will be looking at a person who is not much different,that my dear man is not possibly true or something like it,that is a fact.

So,if you feel that you can discuss the evolution of the cosmos or the development of life on Earth,it should be no problem to discuss the simple and fundamental rotation rate of the Earth on its axis and how the astronomical/physics community suffer a profound misunderstanding on how the rotation rate of the Earth using clocks is derived.

hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

Do you know why the principles and the geometry of the Earth support 24 hours exactly rather than the value found in that website ?.The generalities of contemporary ideas of cosmological structure,evolution and motion sound great but they are built on a lie that is only marginally different from a flat earth or geocentricity.

If you are not mad at this it is clear you have’nt or can’t comprehend just how vacuous our generation is on natural matters.

 

[oriel36]

john doran:

i can’t tell if you’re mad at me or not, but you really shouldn’t be; i have not only said nothing about my own views on science, but i haven’t saddled the church with any, either - notice that i said only that i am sure that the vatican believes relativity theory or something like it to be possibly true.

while i understand your concerns, i don’t share them, at least not to the same degree.

I have to press you for an answer on the technical matter I brought up previously,namely that it is really,really bad science to imagine that the Earth rotates through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.

Now,besides a flat Earth or geocentrism,not knowing what the correct value for the Earth rotating on its axis is marginally better that those two yet the scientific community adopt the wrong value and the principles behind that value.

Let me put it another way, how much would you value the statements of a person who believed in a flat Earth,look in the mirror and you will be looking at a person who is not much different,that my dear man is not possibly true or something like it,that is a fact.

So,if you feel that you can discuss the evolution of the cosmos or the development of life on Earth,it should be no problem to discuss the simple and fundamental rotation rate of the Earth on its axis and how the astronomical/physics community suffer a profound misunderstanding on how the rotation rate of the Earth using clocks is derived.

hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

Do you know why the principles and the geometry of the Earth support 24 hours exactly rather than the value found in that website ?.The generalities of contemporary ideas of cosmological structure,evolution and motion sound great but they are built on a lie that is only marginally different from a flat earth or geocentricity.

If you are not mad at this it is clear you have’nt or can’t comprehend just how vacuous our generation is on natural matters.