Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[grannymh]

While you are right that scientists often confuse science with philosophy, that should not be a problem for an informed theist. It should not be a reason for us to reject evolution, rather, we should be setting the record straight instead.

My point, for many moons, is that informed Catholic theists are not always on the right track. Just because everyone, including me, who works a computer likes to speculate, there is no reason to believe that scientific/theological speculations will automatically replace Divine Revelation.

 

[grannymh]

OK - I thought you may have been aware of Lateran IV.

Perhaps this will help:

Creation Rediscovered - The Traditional Catholic Doctrine of Creation

The beginning of this link refers to a very serious misrepresentation of Catholic protocol. In my humble opinion, it is as if the author has no clue Who the Holy Spirit is and what His role is.

 

[buffalo]

The beginning of this link refers to a very serious misrepresentation of Catholic protocol. In my humble opinion, it is as if the author has no clue Who the Holy Spirit is and what His role is.

Specific passage?

 

[vz71]

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

I can quote several different dictionaries if you would like.
The word design is inherent in the word ‘functioning’ contained within your definition.

 

[grannymh]

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

My apology. I do not have time to thoroughly read the link beyond the misrepresentation of Catholic protocol. I said protocol not dogma. Nonetheless, I did not see a footnote for Lateran IV.

When I return, I will double check the article’s references, because the verification may have been in the body of the article. I will also cross check this Council with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

FYI-- I have been in touch with Fr. Victor Warkulwiz and have his book on order.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you have any idea of the relative probability of the brain to a bacterium?

]
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?

Is “more probable” the very best estimate you can give? I think you would fail in an exam!

So you can estimate the probability of the survival of prehistoric forms of life?

At what level? Individual, species, genus? Survival for how long? A day, a year, a century, millennia? Your question is extremely imprecise.

Your previous answer “more probable” is extremely imprecise! I am referring to the **relative **probability **to one another **of the survival of prehistoric animals , e.g. an amoeba and a dinosaur.

What scientific evidence is there for these assumptions?

We know matter is not eternal; there was no matter before the Big Bang.

What scientific evidence is there that the material universe is destroyed periodically and re-emerges after a period with no material life?

Yet you claim that all life on earth is based on chemistry and that science is a very good explanation of the material portion of reality.

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.

It is directly relevant because:

1. You claim all life on earth is based on chemistry
2. You cite a claim in an article that neuroscience neuroscience may explain the Dalai Lama…

Are there any absolute probabilities relevant to this discussion?

No, because there are no absolute numbers. There are always error bars on scientific results.

So in science there are no absolute probabilities?

So can you estimate the relative probability of the different forms of life on earth and the likelihood of their becoming extinct?

All life on Earth will become extinct because astronomy tells us that the Sun will destroy it all.

I am not asking about when all life on Earth will become extinct but whether you can estimate when different forms of life on earth were likely to become extinct. In other words which are likely to survive longer and, for example, the approximate degree of likelihood for an amoeba and an elephant. Are there overwhelming odds against survival on this planet - discounting human activity?

How do you judge when there is sufficient evidence?

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?

Because you referred to “sufficient” and “limited” evidence. I wish to know to what extent you use estimates of probability which are not mathematical and whether you always demand precise calculations for your own conclusions.

 

[grannymh]

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

Emphasis mine.

This is how the link reads:

"Among the commentators who taught that
Lateran IV had defined the relative simultaneity of the creation of all things, perhaps the most authoritative was St. Lawrence of Brindisi (1559-1619), Doctor of the Church.

“In his commentary on Genesis, St. Lawrence wrote:
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.”

My apology but I only had time to skim the link for footnotes and list of references. So far, I have not found a direct reference to Lateran IV. I will look again when I return. Commentators such as St. Lawrence of Brindisi (1559-1619), Doctor of the Church are valuable, but the need to be read in context.

When I return, I will cross check Lateran IV with the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*. Those who have the hard copy can refer to “Index of Citations” which follows paragraph 2865. I do not have a link to this Index"

 

[grannymh]

Specific passage?

John, Chapter 14.

Unfortunately, there are a few people who refer to the Church Fathers as if every word they ever wrote was the absolutely last word in every matter come rain or shine. This is not how the visible Catholic Church on earth operates. Please check out the promised Holy Spirit.

 

[grannymh]

When I return, I will cross check Lateran IV with the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*. Those who have the hard copy can refer to “Index of Citations” which follows paragraph 2865. I do not have a link to this Index"

Here are the paragraphs in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
which refer, in some way to the
Lateran IV Council, 1215

43
192
202
253
254
296
299
327
391
999
1035
1576

 

[edwest2]

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

The cell membrane allows certain things in and keeps other things out. It’s a bit more complicated than an enclosure for the cell.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

In any previous age this would be called heresy. Curious that ID beings into question the entire nature of God when evolution doesn’t.

Inocente, at least in Texas ID is not winning:

ncse.com/news/2011/05/texas-intelligent-design-bill-dies-006689

 

[grannymh]

The physical make-up of the soul cannot be defined or visibly demonstrated by modern scientific techniques.

The soul is spiritual. The spiritual soul is demonstrated through its basic functions of intellect and will.

Ah, one says. The spiritual cannot be put under a natural science microscope. True. But that does not exclude spiritual reality which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. These tools are part of human nature – the human being one sees in the mirror.

 

[minkymurph]

The soul is spiritual. The spiritual soul is demonstrated through its basic functions of intellect and will.

Yes. It cannot be demonstrated in terms of atoms, electrons, biochemical make-up or physical nature and function. Neither can intellect or will.

Ah, one says. The spiritual cannot be put under a natural science microscope.

That is why it is a subject of theological and philosophical analysis. Do we want to define the presence of God in physical and biological terms and put the consecrated host under the microscope to establish Real Presence happens? It could be argued, why not? The consecrated host is physical matter and if Christ rose to heaven body and soul, could his body be identified in the host? Now wouldn’t that be proof of our belief. I do believe someone on CAF actually suggested it.
grannymh;7931794:

True. But that does not exclude spiritual reality which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. These tools are part of human nature – the human being one sees in the mirror.

Of course it does not exclude spiritual reality and just because spiritual reality cannot be put under a microscope, that does not mean it cannot be known. It can be known without a microscope - by philosophical and theological inquiry. Are these methods inferior to scientific methods and less legitimate? Is the microscope is the most legitimate means of knowledge and superior to all others? Do we need to have our spiritual beliefs backed up by empirical evidence to validate them in the eyes of others?

 

[LittleSoldier]

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

I really like Professor Behe’s definition because it fits with something I have been thinking about for years - what actually defines us. The smallest whatever that defines us; if anything is taken away we cease to exist; if anything is added it may be extraneous or serve some useful function but it is not needed to define us.

I think I’d like to learn more about what Professor Behe has to say. Thanks for presenting his definition.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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

Thank you; that helps a little. I haven’t read it yet but I will. But what you have written here does not mean that evolution does not exist; I certainly have no memory of being around since the beginning of time and that makes me think that there is much more to what is meant than what is being said. Doesn’t what you’ve written mean that absolutely every living organism has existed since the beginning of time? Does the Church teach this? I was under the impression that the Church taught that God created everything *ex nihilo *(which I have no problem understanding at all) and that theistic theories of evolution which take this into account (with a few other items, such as Adam and Eve being the parents of us all) can be accepted by the faithful.

What you’ve written here seems to contradict that. It makes me think that most living organisms have been kept in a huge storehouse for millenia and sometimes some of us get swooped down onto earth. I just don’t think that is Church teaching.

 

[Neildown]

I know you don’t claim to be a follower of ID. Some of the arguments you are using are ID arguments against evolution. that’s were I’m going with ID. In addition, this thread is a debate about ID/Creation/Evolution which is why I mention it.

Ok, I get you now, but when you’re referring to ID it feels like you’re arguing more against that than creationism which kind of throws me off. Even though some of the arguments I’m making might be similar to ID’s these are my personal arguments that I’m applying to my beliefs, thus I’m sure there are some differences.

My point was, were all the species of flora and fauna we see in the world today present in the Garden of Eden? If the answer is ‘no,’ then new species did evolve over time. Of course if someone wants to propose another line of thought as to why we have species of flora and fauna today that were not in the Garden of Eden, I am willing to consider it.

I believe that all animals had common ancestors of the same species - for instance, the wolf from which the dog types emerged - or perhaps there were a couple other different dog-type organisms of the same species along with the wolf. What I believe is that through the help of microevolution they ended up in all of the different breeds we have today. When I say that all animals had common ancestors I do not include humans in that equation. Also, when did we get a list of all the species that were present in the Garden of Eden for you to be able to compare them? I thought no one even knew where the Garden of Eden really was. All I ever heard was that it was most likely someplace in Africa.

While we may not see a new species evolve right in front of our eyes or in our lifetime, the only evidence new species did not evolve from the time of creation until now is a literal interpretation of one verse in Genesis that states God created creatures according to their kind. Some have taken to mean no new species have evolved from the time of creation until now. Therefore, evolution is wrong. Perhaps what we need here is clarification of our understanding of the term, ‘species.’

Good point. However, shouldn’t scientists be able to spot when an animal has transitioned/evolved from one species to another or had another species break off from it? Granted it is a slow process, I have seen no documents claiming, for instance, that 2000 years ago [pick an animal] was a [random species] and now, 2000 years later this same type of organism has sired the [different random species]. If the world is as incredibly old as evolutionists claim it is we were bound to have witnessed some sort of species-change within 2000 years. We have seen plenty of microevolution amongst living organisms but I have only seen alleged macroevolution amongst dead things - dead things that don’t tell the more reliable stories of living things. For instance, I find it a bit audacious that scientists are claiming [and always have been] to know almost everything about dinosaurs simply from their skeletons. True, you can learn a lot from bones, and we have a right and reason to try to figure things out, but they do not tell the whole story.

I know you don’t claim to be a follower of ID. Some of arguments you are using are ID arguments against evolution. that’s were I’m going with ID. In addition, this thread is a debate about ID/Creation/Evolution which is why I mention it.

Gotcha.

I didn’t say unborn babies are fish and I would have to disagree. It is very relevant in relation to current debates concerning ‘personhood.’ As is evolution. But perhaps I’m going off into a bit of tangent there and that debate doesn’t really relate to this thread. Suffice to say that just because something does not physically look ‘human,’ that does not mean that is not human, or physically destined to be human. Meaning the human phenotype came about through a series of biological and physical change.

I was just using that as a comparison - ie. there is a BIG difference between unborn babies and fish. Meh, I don’t really see its relevance. It may be a nice analogy, but it is not scientifically relevant to evolution in any form I can see. Do enlighten me there, if you would. Exactly, but there is a difference between the conception of a human baby vs the conception of the human race, which was half of my point.

 

[Neildown]

I don’t think I have stated anything I say is a fact. If I have, please point it out and I will clarify. If state anything with confidence, it’s because I believe the reasoning I use is sound. Not because it’s of but based on scholarship and not my own opinions. If anyone takes exception to my speaking with confidence when I state something contrary to what they think, then I am entitled to take exception when they state something with confidence that is contrary to what I think. However, I don’t think I do because I don’t see that as the way to engage in meaningful debate.

“At one time we all had a tail and gills.” I asked why you stated that as a fact for the reason that it is what this whole debate is basically about.

What I have said above relates to arguments against abortion, not for it. I would be happy to clarify further, but to do so would derail the thread. Again, suffice to say that despite the fact that at certain stages of development it could be argued that an embryo is not human, it is not destined to be anything else but human. In relation to the thread, who’s to say God did not form species described in Genesis from a common ancestor?

Ok, thank you for clarifying. In relation to post in relation to the thread - I believe that God formed base species, such as the wolf, along with other base species, which evolved into more complex versions of their own species, except for humans because we are the only members of our species. The argument that you pose can be thrown either way, so I doubt it will get anywhere I’m afraid.

 

[buffalo]

Thank you; that helps a little. I haven’t read it yet but I will. But what you have written here does not mean that evolution does not exist; I certainly have no memory of being around since the beginning of time and that makes me think that there is much more to what is meant than what is being said. Doesn’t what you’ve written mean that absolutely every living organism has existed since the beginning of time? Does the Church teach this? I was under the impression that the Church taught that God created everything *ex nihilo *(which I have no problem understanding at all) and that theistic theories of evolution which take this into account (with a few other items, such as Adam and Eve being the parents of us all) can be accepted by the faithful.

What you’ve written here seems to contradict that. It makes me think that most living organisms have been kept in a huge storehouse for millenia and sometimes some of us get swooped down onto earth. I just don’t think that is Church teaching.

No - the key here is creation ex nihilo and simul (simultaneously).

 

[minkymurph]

Ok, I get you now, but when you’re referring to ID it feels like you’re arguing more against that than creationism which kind of throws me off.

In a sense you’re right. I am arguing more against ID than the belief God is the source of all life because - I believe God is the source of all life irrespective of how He did it. Posters on this forum claim ID has no religious intention and has nothing to do with creationism or interpretations of Genesis. I see that as a problem which I explained in detail in another post, so I don’t want to go into it again here. (It would only bore everyone)
However, I am not arguing in favor of Creationism based on literal interpretations of Genesis. I went into that in great detail on another post as well.

I believe that all animals had common ancestors of the same species - for instance, the wolf from which the dog types emerged - or perhaps there were a couple other different dog-type organisms of the same species along with the wolf. What I believe is that through the help of microevolution they ended up in all of the different breeds we have today. When I say that all animals had common ancestors I do not include humans in that equation. Also, when did we get a list of all the species that were present in the Garden of Eden for you to be able to compare them? I thought no one even knew where the Garden of Eden really was. All I ever heard was that it was most likely someplace in Africa.

We didn’t get a list of all the species that were present in Eden, no one does know where the Garden of Eden really was. No one even knows if it was a literal place. I would say it wasn’t based on my understanding of Genesis. That’s the point.

According to the bible Eden was situated in modern day Iraq. Recent scientific discoveries have now suggested that human life first arose in Tanzania. Another problem for literal interpretations of Genesis.

Good point. However, shouldn’t scientists be able to spot when an animal has transitioned/evolved from one species to another or had another species break off from it? Granted it is a slow process, I have seen no documents claiming, for instance, that 2000 years ago [pick an animal] was a [random species] and now, 2000 years later this same type of organism has sired the [different random species]. If the world is as incredibly old as evolutionists claim it is we were bound to have witnessed some sort of species-change within 2000 years. We have seen plenty of microevolution amongst living organisms but I have only seen alleged macroevolution amongst dead things - dead things that don’t tell the more reliable stories of living things. For instance, I find it a bit audacious that scientists are claiming [and always have been] to know almost everything about dinosaurs simply from their skeletons. True, you can learn a lot from bones, and we have a right and reason to try to figure things out, but they do not tell the whole story.

No it doesn’t. Science has limitations.

One of the claims some make against evolution is no new species have appeared (Evolution claims they have) and that all the species (not breeds or types) of flora and fauna in existence today were originally created by God. Science has established that there are species of flora and fauna in existence now that were not in existence thousands of years ago. This being the case, God did not directly create every species of flora and fauna in existence today. (Never mind stars and planets) Evolution is a way to explain how they came into existence. They are not readily explained in the absence of evolution.

I was just using that as a comparison - ie. there is a BIG difference between unborn babies and fish. Meh, I don’t really see its relevance. It may be a nice analogy, but it is not scientifically relevant to evolution in any form I can see. Do enlighten me there, if you would. Exactly, but there is a difference between the conception of a human baby vs the conception of the human race, which was half of my point.

Physically, here is a big difference in the finished product but physically and biologically, those differences are less obvious in the early stages of pregnancy and there are more similarities than difference.

Some believe he appeared on the scene as a fully formed adult male in a short space of time. We don’t know he did. We don’t know how God physically formed Adam, we don’t know how long God chose to take to do it, and we don’t know that God didn’t direct the generation of other species from one, or several similar, organisms.

 

[minkymurph]

Ok, thank you for clarifying. In relation to post in relation to the thread - I believe that God formed base species, such as the wolf, along with other base species, which evolved into more complex versions of their own species, except for humans because we are the only members of our species. The argument that you pose can be thrown either way, so I doubt it will get anywhere I’m afraid.

Most arguments can, and most arguments are only useful when the fall on the ears of those who want to hear them.