creationism and evolution

[Newman60]

Orogeny:

Newman60,

Since you obviously know me well, what, as a “religiously staunch evolutionist”, do I disagree with in Bobby Jim’s post?

As far as the opinion piece you linked to, I noticed that the author specifically stayed away from challenging evolution with science. Why do you think that is?

Peace

Tim

Tim, Sorry I was off-line so long.
The author, Jay Homnick, didn’t challenge evolution with science because he was “…challenging the separate theory that evolution could have happened without someone turning on the switch.” Which he describes as “…an intellectual choice not engineered by logic but by a distaste for the idea of being beholden to a Creator.”

A belief in evolution without a Creator somewhere in the process is merely a different act of faith than I would make or that the Catholic Church approves. In the beginning was???

Jim (Newman60)

 

[Orogeny]

Newman60:

Tim, Sorry I was off-line so long.
The author, Jay Homnick, didn’t challenge evolution with science because he was “…challenging the separate theory that evolution could have happened without someone turning on the switch.” Which he describes as “…an intellectual choice not engineered by logic but by a distaste for the idea of being beholden to a Creator.”

I understand his argument, but I guess I would question whether or not we want ideas taught in science class based on a rhetorical argument rather than science. He seems to think that the former is acceptable. I do not.

A belief in evolution without a Creator somewhere in the process is merely a different act of faith than I would make or that the Catholic Church approves. In the beginning was???

The belief in evolution without a creator is a personal interpretation of the theory. The theory of evolution, as is the case of all science, is neutral on the existence of a creator. A creator, in this case God, is a supernatural being and science is a study of nature.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Chris W:

I didn’t say any of them are incorrect. I said the theory of evolution is based on a number of other theories, and that if any of those sub theories are incorrect, it would call the whole theory of evolution into question.

These are simple facts. I am not being argumentative here.

OK, I’ll accept that. Of course, you could be referring to just about any scientific theory, not just evolution.

Clarification: Abiogenesis is not part of “biological evolution”.
I would argue that it is, however included in the theory of evolution. And the only people I have found, thus far, who will argue that point are theistic evolutionists.

What other type of evolution are we discussing here other than biological evolution? Your argument aside, abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. Where do you find any reference to the origin of life in the following, scientific definition of evolution?

“In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.”

• Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Chris W:

So you and I will be united in rejecting the theory of abiogenesis, regardless of how many notable scientists may someday accept it, because you and I both believe God is the Creator of life? I am pleased to hear that, if that is what you mean.

God created all life. Evolution is a fact.

My response was to Bobby, who seems content to accept that God may not have created life, but just everything necessary for life to have come about on its own. I see that belief as conflicting with Catholic doctrine.

Again, I don’t get that from his post. I think that you are misinterpreting him.

Peace

Tim

 

[Newman60]

Orogeny:

I understand his argument, but I guess I would question whether or not we want ideas taught in science class based on a rhetorical argument rather than science. He seems to think that the former is acceptable. I do not.

The belief in evolution without a creator is a personal interpretation of the theory. The theory of evolution, as is the case of all science, is neutral on the existence of a creator. A creator, in this case God, is a supernatural being and science is a study of nature.

Peace

Tim

Tim, I think Homnick is only objecting to the treatment of the two short, simple disclaimers in Georgia and Pennsylvania. I too found them quite reasonable. What could be wrong with asking people to keep an “open” mind? Or telling them that there could be a different theory or a variation on the theory as presented?
Today’s science in today’s world is one thing. But “science” that attempts to answer questions about what happened thousands or millions of years ago is merely a series of “educated” guesses based on assumptions. It can be a wonderful intellectual exercise. But you have to agree on what you are going assume (or believe in).
We still have good, honest scientific researchers disagreeing about things in today’s world. Even some subjects that we previously thought were resolved.
It’s somewhat like history and revisionist history. Or disagreeing eyewitnesses.
Jim

 

[Orogeny]

Newman60:

Tim, I think Homnick is only objecting to the treatment of the two short, simple disclaimers in Georgia and Pennsylvania. I too found them quite reasonable. What could be wrong with asking people to keep an “open” mind? Or telling them that there could be a different theory or a variation on the theory as presented?

Then do you support putting those labels on other science text books? Evolution is not the only theory being taught in science.

You say that there is a different theory? A scientific theory? I look forward to that, but I haven’t come across any. I could be wrong since I am a geologist not a biologist, but I do follow the debate.

Today’s science in today’s world is one thing. But “science” that attempts to answer questions about what happened thousands or millions of years ago is merely a series of “educated” guesses based on assumptions. It can be a wonderful intellectual exercise. But you have to agree on what you are going assume (or believe in).

No, actually the educated “guesses” are based on evidence, not assumptions. It is more than an intellectual exercise.

We still have good, honest scientific researchers disagreeing about things in today’s world. Even some subjects that we previously thought were resolved.
It’s somewhat like history and revisionist history. Or disagreeing eyewitnesses.
Jim

Once there is a valid scientific argument against evolution, it should be included in science curriculum. Including an opposing view based on a rhetorical argument is wrong.

Peace

Tim

 

[Chris_W]

Orogeny:

What other type of evolution are we discussing here other than biological evolution? Your argument aside, abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. Where do you find any reference to the origin of life in the following, scientific definition of evolution?

“In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.”

• Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

Peace

Tim

I do not find reference to the origin of life in the definition you provided, Tim. But I would point out that the definition you provided, as given at talkorigins.com, is preceded in the very first sentence on that page, with " Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution." It is clear therefore, that this definition is intended to refer only to *biological * evolution.

In a more broad sense, the theory of evolution describes the changes due to unguided influences like the need of survival or changes in environment. And the very same principles uthat would make biological evolution reasonable (at least in the minds of evolutionists) are used in abiogenesis for the very same purpose.

talkorigins.com also provides the following information about the development of abiogenesis:

“Oparin’s hypothesis was this: gels arose out of colloidal solutions which reacted in a way to cause more gels to be formed of the same chemical constitution. As the material in the surrounding watery medium diminished,“the more strongly and bitterly the struggle for existence was waged”, so that gels either became “cannabilistic” or evolved to become autotrophs (organisms that metabolise non-living material, such as algae)”

It goes on to describe more recent advancements and how much more believable the new theories are.

The thing is, it sounds like the guys who got the ball rolling on the abiogenesis thoery thought it was evolution.

Then I see that Science textbook authors Wynn and Wiggins describe the abiogenesis process in the following manner:

"Aristotle believed that decaying material could be transformed by the “spontaneous action of Nature” into living animals. His hypothesis was ultimately rejected, but… Aristotle’s hypothesis has been replaced by another spontaneous generation hypothesis, one that requires billions of years to go from the molecules of the universe to cells, and then, via random mutation/natural selection, from cells to the variety of organisms living today. ** This version, which postulates chance happenings eventually leading to the phenomenon of life, is biology’s Theory of Evolution* (1997, p. 105)."*

Now you may argue that Winn and Wiggins are ill-informed or ignorant, but the fact of the matter is, they are not the only ones who consider abiogenesis to be part of the theory of evolution.

Furthermore, I can find no reason *not * to include abiogenesis into the theory of evolution, other than on the insistance of theistic evolutionists who would like to hold on to their belief that the theory of evolution is not anti-God.

The only rebuttal you have provided thus far (as is the case with Philvaz as well, in other threads), is to say “because it isn’t evolution”, and to quote a precise definition of *biological * evolution. To say “because it isn’t” is not an answer, Tim.

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

No, actually the educated “guesses” are based on evidence, not assumptions. It is more than an intellectual exercise.

Very limited evidence. One piece of a 1000 piece puzzle and we can determine what the puzzle looks like?

 

[Chris_W]

Orogeny:

Once there is a valid scientific argument against evolution, it should be included in science curriculum. Including an opposing view based on a rhetorical argument is wrong.

Peace

Tim

If I may chime in, in response to this challenge:

People of faith are not limited to scientific evidence. Unlike scientists, we have the liberty to consider other evidences, like the Word of God, the authority of the Church, evidence of miracles, phylosiphical arguments like those posed by Aquinas, etc.

Therefore, we do not need to disprove evolution via scientific evidence. Non-scientific evidences are sufficient reason to reject the theory.

Therefore, we can merely point out that evolution is not fact. It cannot be proven (because that is not possible with scientific experiments). And anyone who claims it is a fact is being disengenuous and unscientific. Neither can science disprove creation.

Therefore, creationists are not being “hostile to reason” (as I have been accused of in other threads) but are in fact reasonable in rejecting evolution based on the limitations of science, and evidences outside the scope of science.

Considering these facts, and the fact that our great country was founded by people of faith, and since the majority of the world’s population attribute the existance of the universe to God (in one form or another), evolution should not be taught in schools as if it were fact. The limitations of science should be discussed as it pertains to evolution so as not to alienate people of faith. Gravity is different because the religions of the world do not generally argue against gravity, it is not widely contested, and it does not seek to answer a question that the world religions answer through their theology.

 

[buffalo]

Chris W:

If I may chime in, in response to this challenge:

People of faith are not limited to scientific evidence. Unlike scientists, we have the liberty to consider other evidences, like the Word of God, the authority of the Church, evidence of miracles, phylosiphical arguments like those posed by Aquinas, etc.

Therefore, we do not need to disprove evolution via scientific evidence. Non-scientific evidences are sufficient reason to reject the theory.

Therefore, we can merely point out that evolution is not fact. It cannot be proven (because that is not possible with scientific experiments). And anyone who claims it is a fact is being disengenuous and unscientific. Neither can science disprove creation.

Therefore, creationists are not being “hostile to reason” (as I have been accused of in other threads) but are in fact reasonable in rejecting evolution based on the limitations of science, and evidences outside the scope of science.

Considering these facts, and the fact that our great country was founded by people of faith, and since the majority of the world’s population attribute the existance of the universe to God (in one form or another), evolution should not be taught in schools as if it were fact. The limitations of science should be discussed as it pertains to evolution so as not to alienate people of faith. Gravity is different because the religions of the world do not generally argue against gravity, it is not widely contested, and it does not seek to answer a question that the world religions answer through their theology.

I am amazed that as smart as scientists are and the fact that by definition science is limited in scope that they cannot see that they should include metaphysics and Revelation as their base of knowledge.

 

[Newman60]

Orogeny:

Then do you support putting those labels on other science text books? Evolution is not the only theory being taught in science.

You say that there is a different theory? A scientific theory? I look forward to that, but I haven’t come across any. I could be wrong since I am a geologist not a biologist, but I do follow the debate.

No, actually the educated “guesses” are based on evidence, not assumptions. It is more than an intellectual exercise.

Once there is a valid scientific argument against evolution, it should be included in science curriculum. Including an opposing view based on a rhetorical argument is wrong.

Peace

Tim

Tim,
It always comes to this point between us. You are very knowledgable, very well read and very bright. You are certainly more knowledgable and far more well read than I am.
But any debate on origins has to acknowledge a starting point. And since the origin occurred before the existence of any of our historically known ancestors(and before any of them recorded any history), then any theory has to be based on assumptions and not pure science. Darwin theorized only on the origin of species not an ultimate origin.
Whatever the mechanism or assumptions, ascribing ultimate origin to an eternal God and Creator is not unreasonable. Nor is the scientist able to posit anything else without making assumptions which are similar acts of faith.
Could evolution be the method used and then God put souls in His chosen Adam and Eve? Certainly. It’s a reasonable if cumbersome theory. But we still have to account for the origin of everything else before that moment. To the ultimate Intelligent Designer or Creator? It works for me to have our eternal, All-Powerful, All-Knowing God be that origin. To have Him be the designer of all the codes, of all the mechanisms and of all matter is a simpler assumption or act of faith.

Peace to you.

Jim

 

[Bobby_Jim]

I thought about this a bit overnight (which is a bad sign, when I think about things on these Forums when I’m away from my computer - a signal that it’s time to take a long break).

Anyway, I think I was unclear in the way I stated things in previous posts - I made it sound as if God’s creative act only occurs at specific moments of creation, be that 12 billion or 2 billion or 6 thousand years ago, and everything else happens “naturally” from then on, the implication being that things that happen “naturally” are somehow happening apart from God. It’s more subtle than that. I certainly wouldn’t equate God with “nature”, but there is a sense that “nature” is one of the ways in which God acts. So if I drop a ball, it “naturally” falls to the ground. Does God cause it to fall? Yes. We could even say that every single time a ball falls, that God makes a specific decision to let it fall, or sends an angel to carry it to the ground in a controlled way, or something like that. Or we can say that God created the entire universe in such a way that massive objects are attracted to each other, to which we give the name gravitation. God is still the cause of the ball falling, certainly in the sense that he is the Prime Mover or uncaused cause of all other causes.

There’s also the idea that God is somehow outside of or not subject to time in the way that we are. I don’t know, maybe that sounds too sci-fi or something. But it kind of frees us from thinking that God’s creative act happens at time X, and everything after that is independent of God. Rather there’s a sense that God’s creation happened at some point in history, and yet is continuously unfolding. But not exactly “guided”, as if God is driving a car, and at each point in time He makes a decision on where to steer. Nor would I say that God decides where he wants to go, maps out the route, and then put the car on autopilot, or that God just lets it go where it will, or chooses to make certain specific stops on the way - any of these would be flirting with determinism. I think this is the danger in thinking too mechanistically about how God acts, whether it is in talking about how creation happened, or how God answers prayers, or whatever.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

I’m also very interested in what role this question plays in peoples’ faith life. Does it affect your ability to give praise and worship and glory to God? Does it impact the way you love and serve your neighbor? Does it change the way you make moral decisions in your life? Does it impact how you pray? Does it change the way you respond to Christ, and his life, death, and resurrection, and his call to make disciples of all nations?

For some I can see it as perhaps undermining their sense of the authority of Scripture. But that shouldn’t be our problem as Catholics - the authority of Scripture rests on the teaching authority of the Church, which comes from Christ. And, as long as you remain within certain parameters, the Church doesn’t insist on a literal reading of the creation account in Genesis. This seems like it would be much more of a problem for those who don’t acknowledge the authority of the Church, and for whom insisting upon a literal, historical reading of the creation is necessary to bolster the authority of Scripture.

But for all of the time, effort, and energy people put into debating this, at the end of the day, you are where you are, God is God, and he puts before you a choice, a blessing or curse, to obey God and his commandments, or to turn aside to follow other gods. Which will you choose, and why? Is it because God created biological life in a certain way, or is it because he is the bread of life, his flesh given for the life of the world? Is it because God created nature to obey certain laws, or is it because he has placed his law within you, and written his covenant on your heart?

 

[Chris_W]

Bobby Jim:

I’m also very interested in what role this question plays in peoples’ faith life.

Precisely my interest in the topic.

The danger of accepting the theory of evolution, in my opinion, is that it does have dramatic affects on the more subtle aspects of faith.

Take for example the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception. I believe the gravity of the sin is tied very closely to the understanding that God creates the life. That is to say, we of our own physical nature cannot produce life. If an infant is conceived in the womb it is because God actively participated in the creation of tha life. Therefore, if we use artificial contraception, it is an indication of our lack of faith in one or more ways: Either we think God will make a mistake. Or we think we are more wise than God (cuz we know best). Or we think we can create a life without God’s involvement.

This whole issue is intimately tied to an acknowledgement that God is the Creator of life. And without God’s active participation, no life will be created. The theory of evolution underminds that recognition by inferring that life came about without God’s active participation (i.e. abiogenesis), even if God created everything necessary for life.

Then we can consider self esteem of people. Take an ugly person for example. True self esteem comes from knowing God created that individual. God formed that person in the womb, and that person is exactly how God wanted him/her to look. Since God doesn’t make mistakes, that person can have self esteem or value, even if ugly. Perhaps that is not a perfec example, but hopefully you get the gist.

The point is, the theory of evolution points away from God rather than pointing toward God, as we look at our universe and the vast diversity of life. I feel like evolutionists pat us on the head, saying, “don’t worry, the theory of evolution is harmless. It doesn’t conflict with Christian doctrines…nothing to be alarmed about”. Meanwhile the theory subverts the faith of Christians without them even realizing it.

Did that answer your question?

 

[Bobby_Jim]

Chris W:

Did that answer your question?

Yes, thank you for taking the time to explain that.

 

[wanerious]

Chris W:

Precisely my interest in the topic.

The danger of accepting the theory of evolution, in my opinion, is that it does have dramatic affects on the more subtle aspects of faith.

Hi, everyone. This is kind of like a weekly meeting.

I think you’re right. In my case, at least, science continually refines my faith and metaphysics. My views and theology are different today than they were 5 years ago, and I’m sure they’ll change again through the iterative process as time goes by.

Take for example the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception. I believe the gravity of the sin is tied very closely to the understanding that God creates the life. That is to say, we of our own physical nature cannot produce life. If an infant is conceived in the womb it is because God actively participated in the creation of tha life. Therefore, if we use artificial contraception, it is an indication of our lack of faith in one or more ways: Either we think God will make a mistake. Or we think we are more wise than God (cuz we know best). Or we think we can create a life without God’s involvement.

Well, we can. The Church teaches that intercourse is a sacred act, yet we may still “create” a baby by fertilizing gametes outside of the body. I suppose God participates in this process as well, but it is at least interesting that we can sidestep the sacred. I use “create” loosely, of course, but still babies born of this process are no less true persons, yes?

This whole issue is intimately tied to an acknowledgement that God is the Creator of life. And without God’s active participation, no life will be created. The theory of evolution underminds that recognition by inferring that life came about without God’s active participation (i.e. abiogenesis), even if God created everything necessary for life.

Maybe. The gaps are still big enough in abiogenesis to fit an active, miraculous God in a number of places, but those gaps may narrow over time.

The point is, the theory of evolution points away from God rather than pointing toward God, as we look at our universe and the vast diversity of life. I feel like evolutionists pat us on the head, saying, “don’t worry, the theory of evolution is harmless. It doesn’t conflict with Christian doctrines…nothing to be alarmed about”. Meanwhile the theory subverts the faith of Christians without them even realizing it.

I don’t feel at all that I’m being led away from God by my scientific career. Quite the contrary, I was baptized after my degree. My theology is probably quite different from yours, though, so I can imagine it possible that, for some, it comes down to a choice of rejecting science or modifying their own theology. Maybe a little subversion is ultimately a good thing.

 

[wanerious]

Chris W:

If I may chime in, in response to this challenge:

People of faith are not limited to scientific evidence. Unlike scientists, we have the liberty to consider other evidences, like the Word of God, the authority of the Church, evidence of miracles, phylosiphical arguments like those posed by Aquinas, etc.

Sure, and in a theocracy, one may teach any non-scientific, religious claims that one likes. In a secular republic we ought to teach the science.

Therefore, we do not need to disprove evolution via scientific evidence. Non-scientific evidences are sufficient reason to reject the theory.

Only in a personal sense.

 

[Chris_W]

wanerious:

In my case, at least, science continually refines my faith and metaphysics.

I commend you if you can reconcile the positions of evolution and Christianity, wanerious. I have not been able to. Nor, through several other threads, has anyone else been able to help me with that.

wanerious:

The Church teaches that intercourse is a sacred act, yet we may still “create” a baby by fertilizing gametes outside of the body. I suppose God participates in this process as well, but it is at least interesting that we can sidestep the sacred. I use “create” loosely, of course, but still babies born of this process are no less true persons, yes?

Any new life requires the active participation of God. At least that is what I understand to be the Catholic position. Therefore we are merely co-creators, however a life is created.

wanerious:

Maybe. The gaps are still big enough in abiogenesis to fit an active, miraculous God in a number of places, but those gaps may narrow over time.

Indeed the gaps narrow in the sceintific world of evolution. I recall reading (I think on talkorigins) that the gap between living and non-living matter is decreasing as well, relating to abiogenesis of course. Some evolutionists insist that evolution only applies to living organisms, but that is changing isn’t it? The gap continually narrows.

I am curious where you see God’s participation, in light of the theories concerning abiogenesis.

wanerious:

I don’t feel at all that I’m being led away from God by my scientific career. Quite the contrary, I was baptized after my degree. My theology is probably quite different from yours, though, so I can imagine it possible that, for some, it comes down to a choice of rejecting science or modifying their own theology. Maybe a little subversion is ultimately a good thing.

I am glad for you that you see God in science. That is the way it should be, and I wish more people did.

I do not reject science, wanerious. I reject scientific theories that I believe conflict with Christian principles because Christianity is the higher truth. The theory of evolution is merely man’s conclusions based on their examination and interpretation of evidences. Aren’t man’s conclusions and interpretations subject to error? Must I accept the conclusions of fallible men, simply because they say something is true and provide evidence that can be interpreted to support their claims?

 

[Chris_W]

wanerious:

Sure, and in a theocracy, one may teach any non-scientific, religious claims that one likes. In a secular republic we ought to teach the science.

But what you are inferring is that evolution is neutral. Evolution is not neutral. That’s my point. If we cannot teach about God in school then neither should we be exclusively teaching a theory that, in the minds of many, is anti-God.

If one debatable theory is taught to the exclusion of other possibilities, that is not education.

…I think that is called brainwashing.

 

[buffalo]

Bingo!!!