E
- Status
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
This is why I walk away, shaking my head. I read a response like that and I have no idea what is being said, have never heard that phrase or expression or whatever it is, bing it and there are no results (although there are results for Lateran IV, Lateran IV Eucharist, and Lateran IV Transubstantiation), and I’m sorry but I do not understand.
Please clarify. Thank you.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
There are many who accept theistic theories of evolution that meet Church criteria. I am one, also. I don’t understand why this is a problem for some.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
What is? Is this a response to a post? A quote or post number would be most helpful here.
Thank you.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
There’s something nagging at me and I don’t know if I can put it into words. Please bear with me.
It seems to me that if a being is omniscient and omnipotent, then being aware of any evolutionary changes kinda results in being responsible for those changes. I mean, in a way. God, being omnipotent, can use any method He wants to bring life to a planet. Certainly He could have created every form of life present now in its current form and He could have created every form of life extinct now as whatever form it was back then. I don’t see how anyone can argue with this.
God, being omniscient, certainly knew from the start what would happen; even if He didn’t create living beings in their current forms He knew what every tiny bit of every being would be. Also, I don’t think God works with the time that we do. I mean that time is different to the divine.
So, in a way, doesn’t His knowledge of what would happen mean that He designed it? If evolution exists and is responsible for the current forms of living organisms, why couldn’t God have designed it that way? Oh, this is so hard to write!
What I really want to know is what happened in that gap between sub-human and human beings with souls. Doesn’t the fact that we have souls (actually I would say that we *are *souls with human bodies) point an arrow at some sort of design? Evolution may appear random to us; it probably wouldn’t appear random to God because of His omniscience.
OK. This is the best I can do. My dog is whining to go outside so I’m going to go ahead and post this. And my spell check has disappeared (again) so I apologize for any misspellings.
Go ahead and laugh at me. This is the best I can do right now. I’m not getting my point across. Maybe someone can help me.
It seems to me that if a being is omniscient and omnipotent, then being aware of any evolutionary changes kinda results in being responsible for those changes. I mean, in a way. God, being omnipotent, can use any method He wants to bring life to a planet. Certainly He could have created every form of life present now in its current form and He could have created every form of life extinct now as whatever form it was back then. I don’t see how anyone can argue with this.
God, being omniscient, certainly knew from the start what would happen; even if He didn’t create living beings in their current forms He knew what every tiny bit of every being would be. Also, I don’t think God works with the time that we do. I mean that time is different to the divine.
So, in a way, doesn’t His knowledge of what would happen mean that He designed it? If evolution exists and is responsible for the current forms of living organisms, why couldn’t God have designed it that way? Oh, this is so hard to write!
What I really want to know is what happened in that gap between sub-human and human beings with souls. Doesn’t the fact that we have souls (actually I would say that we *are *souls with human bodies) point an arrow at some sort of design? Evolution may appear random to us; it probably wouldn’t appear random to God because of His omniscience.
OK. This is the best I can do. My dog is whining to go outside so I’m going to go ahead and post this. And my spell check has disappeared (again) so I apologize for any misspellings.
Go ahead and laugh at me. This is the best I can do right now. I’m not getting my point across. Maybe someone can help me.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I do, too. That is the most interesting part of this puzzle. What happened? When was the soul introduced? Is that when some human-like beings became actual human beings?I wonder when the God created soul will be resoved.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful to know that?
T
tonyrey
Guest
[/QUOTE]
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Yes, He designed it.
It does, absolutely.
Your post is just fine, and you are asking all the right questions.
The following post of mine addresses the issue of randomness in detail:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7893029&postcount=523
M
minkymurph
Guest
Is there not a giant turtle that has three tails? - Maybe I’ve been watching too many Pokeman cartoons.
In any case, if you say it too loudly it might happen. It’s Murphy’s Law.
Murphy’s Law is (in short) - ‘Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.’
In addition:
Every solution breeds new problems.
Interchangeable parts - won’t.
The probability of a piece of bread falling buttered side down is directly proportional to the cost of the carpet.
If everything seems to be going well; you have obviously overlooked something.
It is impossible to make anything fool-proof because fools are so ingenious.
I could go on and on - for more information visit www.murphyslaw.com.
Suffice to say, I believe Murphy’s Law to be as valid as any other and it is one the reasons I have no problem accepting unpredictability.
(Had to have a little fun)
I
inocente
Guest
The paper isn’t science - the intro calls it a contention, the paper says it’s just an evaluation.
Meyer himself (page 271) questions whether any of ID can be called science, before wondering off into metaphysics hoping he can slip it in sideways. And for theists he drops a bombshell, completely separating ID from a personal god with his “metaphysically neutral criteria” – the intelligent agent is reduced to a mindless computer.
In any previous age this would be called heresy. Curious that ID beings into question the entire nature of God when evolution doesn’t.
R
rossum
Guest
I didn’t say that. I said that if they predict the same thing then finding that the predictions are true does not decide between them. We need to examine where they make different predictions.
Because we have seen it in the lab. We have seen it in real life. We have seen it in computer simulations and Professor Behe has shown us that it can happen. If anyone knows then it would be Professor Behe.
Look at the data from Lenski’s long term E. coli experiment. If you are properly licensed then you can even get samples of the cultures from him and sequence them yourself.
Alternatively, here is the complete sequence from another of Lenski’s studies.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
On the contrary. Behe’s own calcualtions showed that a small populaiton of bacteria, using only a subset of available evolutionary mechanisms, could evolve a simple IC system in 20,000 years. With a larger population the time to evolve would be even quicker.
I am perfectly well aware of the definition of IC. Your definition is faulty because it includes the word “designed”, which is assuming what you have to prove.
Here is Professor Behe’s own definition:A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
– Darwin’s Black Box, 39.
No mention of design there. You cannot assume design if your intention is to show the presence of design. That is affirming the consequent, a logical error.
rossum
M
minkymurph
Guest
The immortal soul is a mystery. I for one am happy to leave it like that, but that is a very inadequate response.
My understanding of Catholic theology of the soul is that we don’t believe in dualism. Simply put - the soul and body are not two separate entities. To further explain, (simply) human are both body and soul, flesh ‘clothes’ our soul. We don’t know how God physically combined an immortal soul with flesh. We don’t know at what point in gestation God confers an immortal soul on the developing human. It’s the mystery of life.
The physical make-up of the soul cannot be defined or visibly demonstrated by modern scientific techniques. Other things can be. Therefore, they can be visibly demonstrated and knowledge concerning them can be established. Therefore, the soul is a topic for theological/philosophical inquiry - because it cannot be physically defined or demonstrated.
I know no one has said it yet, but I would like to add that no one yet identified a ‘sin’ gene. Aside from the law of God and Church teaching, physical actions and their consequences enable to determine what is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ and we can relate this to thoughts and motives. But we cannot physically demonstrate the inherited, or ‘original’ sin because empirical evidence can only be established in relation to what can visibly and physically demonstrated. That’s why it has limitations.
The immortal soul and sin are accepted on the basis of religious belief, not on the basis of establishment of empirical evidence as a consequence of scientific inquiry. Any search for empirical evidence to establish the existence of the soul (or sin) would to me; be a mistake because it inadvertently endorses the modern view that scientific knowledge is superior to all others, which inevitably leads to rejection of theological and philosophical knowledge.
R
rossum
Guest
I have already answered that, a bacterium is more probable than a human brain. What part of “The odds on a bacterium are likely to be better; one cell compared to many cells.” did you have a problem with?
At what level? Individual, species, genus? Survival for how long? A day, a year, a century, millennia? Your question is extremely imprecise.
We know matter is not eternal; there was no matter before the Big Bang. The rest is Buddhist theology, which has just as much scientific support as the Christian belief in angels, and as much need for such support.
What does that have to do with my lack of specific knowledge of neuroscience? I was answering a specific question from you about neuroscience, not a general question about life the universe and everything.
No, because there are no absolute numbers. There are always error bars on scientific results.
All life on Earth will become extinct because astronomy tells us that the Sun will destroy it all.
When the error bars are narrow enough. If my estimated profit for the day is between +$100 and -$100 then I do not proceed. If my estimated profit is between +$100 and +$300 then it is reasonable to proceed. Why do you need to ask such an obvious question?
rossum
The word design is inherent in the word ‘functioning’ contained within the definition you ascribe to.
It is not the definition that is faulty.
B
buffalo
Guest
What is its function - is still an open question. Unless function is arbitrary.
R
rossum
Guest
There are non-IC mechanisms in living things which have a function, the lipid bilayer cell membrane for example. They can easily be formed by simple chemical processes and are not IC. Nevertheless the membrane has a function.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
The function of an item depends on the item. Which item in particular were you referring to?
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
OK - I thought you may have been aware of Lateran IV.
Perhaps this will help:
Creation Rediscovered - The Traditional Catholic Doctrine of Creation
…the Holy Roman Church determined in the Fourth Lateran Council that the angels
along with the creatures of the world were at once created ex nihilo from the
beginning of time.
at once - simul
B
buffalo
Guest
We can discuss any specified item.
- Status