C
Cat_Herder
Guest
I guess you weren’t paying attention when I mentioned the anthropic principle.
See the forum rules.
- Status
L
larkin31
Guest
Natural selection is not “purely random,” an no scientist has ever claimed that it is so. This is a strawman.
Are you trying to discuss abiogenesis, rather than speciation over time? Abiogenesis is rarely discussed in high schools and is a very tentative, speculative field. It is not a part of any set of science standards for schools.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
I guess you haven’t been to school or college for a while. Many members of this forum, including myself, have had atheism thrust on them under the color of random natural selection at the hands of a teacher or professor.
Abiogenesis (the origin of the first living creature) is certainly part of it but there is plenty of chaos involved with evolution, take for example the fractal development of circulatory systems.
K
kbachler
Guest
I guess I was. The anthropic principle is a completely separate topic from Chaos Theory. Chaos Theory is not required to apply the anthropic principle nor is the anthropic principle required to apply Chaos Theory.
Is it possible to have them both applied? Yes. But the anthropic principle is controversial and certainly not more than an interesting speculation at this point. It may never be more than that. It may make a certain amount of sense, but until we have a broader experience, it may not make any sense. It may make sense with respect to some things, and not with respect to others. It certainly is not accepted as “the way things are” at this point, and is not accepted as the only (or the main) cosmological explanation.
K
kbachler
Guest
Its “purely random” in the sense that the situations that fit nature the best are the ones that are selected - there is no assumption of any other law than “fit to nature” driving the process.
K
kbachler
Guest
You’re taking “fringe” concepts that aren’t necessary for the main theory and applying them as though they are generally accepted. At this point they aren’t. Perhaps some day they will be, but the preponderance of evidence does not require them at this point.
It appears that complex carbon compounds - organic molecules - arise naturally within nature. Such compounds have even been observed in a range of situations, from interstellar clouds to comets. Given this, it is most reasonable at this point to assume that some of these compounds are formed during stellar and solar system formation, and planetary formation. An additional rain of the compounds onto planets from comets also seem likely.
Given this, it is reasonably possible that under various circumstances the rise of carbon-based self-replicating molecules - DNA, RNA, TNA, PNA and others - may be a normal function of the universe. No huge special roles for Chaos outside of its normal role in physics. No huge special roles for abiogenesis. This explanation is simpler, and fits better with the situation. When a preponderance of evidence supports another theory, then we can consider that more likely.
K
kbachler
Guest
I’m not violating any forum rules, I’m sharing information any good Christian would share with any other good Christian, or that any good teacher would share with any good student. The evolutionary theory does not require abiogenesis or Chaos Theory, nor are they considered mainstream parts of the theory. If anyone acts as though they are, and talks as though they are, then that demonstrates a poor and confused understanding of the theory.
L
larkin31
Guest
Natural selection is not “atheism,” nor does the Catholic Church consider it so. The Church does not deny natural selection (it knows better than that).
I objected to the inaccurate phrasing “purely random.” There is nothing “purely random” about evolutionary theory since the laws of physics do not allow for “purely random” configurations. Abiogenesis is barely a part of evolutionary teaching. In high schools I hazard to guess that it is not taught at all. Evolution in schools is taught as natural selection and common descent, with a good mix of fossil evidence of speciation. To attack evolutionary teachings in “schools” via abiogenesis (which is not taught in schools) is to use a strawman.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
I have been made into a straw man who denies that natural selection is a cause of human development and who uses abiogenesis to attack it.
Read my posts carefully and you’ll find I’ve done neither. All I have said is that schools have no business teaching that spontaneous, uncaused (what I mean by “random”) natural selection is the sole cause of evolution. First of all such a teaching establishes atheism; secondly it is not valid science because there is no proof that natural selection is random or uncaused or spontaneous, and plenty that it is a chaotic system affected by attractors.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
Evolution requires life. Life requires abiogenesis.
Life requires circulation; to give one example, circulatory systems are fractals; fractals require attractors; attractors require chaos.
Who defines what is “mainstream?” In case you haven’t noticed, Catholicism is not “mainstream” while abortion is. If your standard for determining truth is whatever is “mainstream,” that explains a lot.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
L
larkin31
Guest
That’s not what schools teach. Thus my strawman retort.I have been made into a straw man who denies that natural selection is a cause of human development and who uses abiogenesis to attack it.
Read my posts carefully and you’ll find I’ve done neither. All I have said is that schools have no business teaching that spontaneous, uncaused (what I mean by “random”) natural selection is the sole cause of evolution. First of all such a teaching establishes atheism; secondly it is not valid science because there is no proof that natural selection is random or uncaused or spontaneous, and plenty that it is a chaotic system affected by attractors.
L
larkin31
Guest
Awesome! They are investigating in one lab what might be happening on the molecular level. No one claims that elements of atomic and molecular behavior are NEVER random or “chaotic” or “fractal.” And, furthermore, this level of atomic/molecular detail is neither taught nor summarized in schools. Moreover, it in no way contradicts the general core of evolutionary theory, which is that speciation is driven in part by natural selection and is evidenced in common descent and the continually growing fossil and geologic record. The actual physical chemistry of genomic processes continues to be explored. Yes. Awesome!
M
Mary_Christ
Guest
Sorry. No I do not think that evolution should be taought in public schools, because I find no validity in the evolution theory.
F
freethinker83
Guest
What scientific theory do you think better explains the changes in life over the Earth’s history? What do you think should be taught in its place in the science classroom?
G
grannymh
Guest
The updated evolutionary theories are usually good at explaining non-human life, such as animals, plants, and bacteria. However, one needs to be aware that evolutionary theory limits knowledge of human nature to only the material anatomy which eventually decomposes or turns into fossils.
As far as I can tell, creationism and the general faith/science group do not include Catholic teachings on human nature. So, either way, Catholicism is left out.
F
freethinker83
Guest
Evolution isn’t really meant to say anything about human nature. Evolution does a good job of explaining how humans evolved.
G
grannymh
Guest
So how did evolving humans become human? Or rather what distinguishes you and me from Homo Erectus since we both are bipedal?
My apology. A discussion of evolution may be off topic. However, 21st century technology does try to address the nature of the human person. It simply does not address the fully complete human nature which in itself is rational/corporeal.
Blessings,
granny
Human life is sacred.
L
larkin31
Guest
How should a science teacher answer the child that asks, “Did T-Rex ever chase a human”?
M
Mary_Christ
Guest
ADAPTATION FOR THE SURVIVAL OF LIFE, NOT THE TERM EVOLUTION. Ah yes. The fatal question. Let me answer. Jesus has control of everything, including all biological and chemical reactions at the cellular level, the DNA level. In the beginning, everything was created by God, David, Jesus’s Father. However, as man flourished, the natural environment was and continues to be changed, but all under Jesus’s power. Under the guiding light of Jesus’s love, a person, animal, plant or microorganism can be permanently changed by an affect of man or weather patterns. However, Jesus can just zap back the original in a snap.
An example is when a factory was built and smokey pollution entered the air, the moths were covered with soot. And so these moths flourished in the environment because the birds who would eat them had a time seeing them, or something like that.
Essentially, the particular changes being made in God’s original creation are an effect of man, or weather patterns, both of which are controlled by God. If Jesus does not want a large moth population, He can give them a natural early death, so they do not flourish.
What should be taught in science class? God created. Jesus supports all created. Man for his comfort, has manually created. What man has manually created has an effect upon what God created. What is this effect? How will Jesus allow what man creates affect his Father’s creation? Not very scientific.
Can one allow Faith into the science class? If not, then Jesus will not be very happy. What was taught in science class before Darwin? Essentially, God created man, man flourished, and by the invention of men, changes in the world occurred, causing changes in God’s original creation. Smoking and lung cancer is an example.
More simply put-When Jesus allows a change in the environment, whether it be sudden or gradual, whether this change is an act of nature or an act of man. there will be changes in the adaption of all organisms including people, whether sudden or gradual, for survival, but as Jesus allows, not as we want. Until it is time for the world to end, then adaptation will end, I think maybe.:twocents:
As an example of dietary adaptation- I like to imagine that no one ever thought about eating frog legs. Not until God had all those frogs jumping around in those days, then people as they tried their best to control this, starting eating and enjoying frog legs.
And so there is some truth to evolution, but this is also under Jesus’s control. And these changes should not come under the term of evolution, but rather ADAPTATION.
- Status