Darwinism in schools?

[buffalo]

johnnyjones was asking about the emergence of order from disorder. It seemed to me that his level of knowledge required a reasonably simple example, so I used crystallisation.

I did briefly touch on the larger scale explanation, gravity and chemistry, but not at any great length.

In either case we have drifted a long way from the thread title of “Darwinism in schools?”

rossum

It always gets this way… For ID or Darwinism to be taught in science class we should be interested in the truth. By debating the particulars we all learn more.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No one has any problem with change over time as anyone who has grown from infant to adult well knows. More specifically molecules to man is the issue.

You know very well that rossum was not referring to the kind of change that happens to an individual over his lifetime. Also generating life from non-living molecules is not the issue either. Evolution as a scientific theory deals with one species of life after many generations giving rise to another species of life. So if you are going to argue against evolution, at least stick to evolution. Now there is another whole theory of how molecules might have developed into life, and that theory, while also a scientific theory, is much less supported, and thus a much easier target for criticism. So I can’t blame you for wanting to change the subject to make your job easier. But don’t pretend that by doing so you are arguing against evolution.

 

[johnnyjones]

This is science. A knowledge of reality is essential. In this thread you have shown that you do not have the necessary knowledge. I strongly suggest that you learn more science before further posting on this thread. You will not make as many errors.

Let us start small. Dissolve some salt (or sugar) in a saucer of water. The salt (or sugar) molecules are dissolved in the water and are disordered – they are in no particular arrangement and are moving around in the whole volume of the water. Now leave the saucer out undisturbed until the water evaporates. Observe what has happened to the dissolved salt (or sugar). It has formed into crystals. The molecules in the crystals are now highly ordered, closely constrained into the rigid cubic grid of the crystal. Disordered dissolved molecules have formed a highly ordered crystal under purely natural processes.

On the larger scale, gravity causes matter to clump together. Once matter has clumped, then other processes, like chemistry, can rearrange the matter into more ordered states, like the crystals in my example. The short answer to your question is gravity and chemistry.

That is what I meant by your insufficient knowledge. Did you really not know how easy it is to form crystals? If you did, then why didn’t you show us that you knew by not asking a question that implied that you didn’t. Maybe you just copied the question from a creationist source, without thinking about it. In that case, you have shot yourself in the foot. I have already warned you that creationist sources lie to you. You should always check everything they say very thoroughly. A little checking and thought would have enabled you to come up with the crystallisation example for yourself.

Order can easily emerge from the intrinsic chemical and physical properties of matter. It does not take a great deal of scientific knowledge to realise that.

rossum

Why do you sound so angry? Crystalized sugar or salt is so far from a complex cell, I’m surprised you used that example. Ive heard similar examples before. Copy? Anything said is passed down, including the science you assert over and over. Your right I should check things as well you should. I think you still deny Armstrong made comments about the moon dust being deep ? Keep checking.
.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Crystalized sugar or salt is so far from a complex cell, I’m surprised you used that example.

The point of that example was as a counter to your statement when you said in post #344:

Your “elements” are creating order out of disorder. Show me how the disorder of the big bang created order?

in which you were talking about the general process of creating order from disorder. rossum was just showing how you can indeed have something that looks like order arise from something that looks disordered. It was not meant to illustrate the kind of complexity of living cell. I thought it was a good illustration of the point.

I think you still deny Armstrong made comments about the moon dust being deep ? Keep checking.
.

Don’t you think that whether a certain astronaut did or did not say something about moon dust that it has a very tenuous connection to the question of evolution? Why should anyone keep checking on that side-track?

 

[buffalo]

You know very well that rossum was not referring to the kind of change that happens to an individual over his lifetime. Also generating life from non-living molecules is not the issue either. Evolution as a scientific theory deals with one species of life after many generations giving rise to another species of life. So if you are going to argue against evolution, at least stick to evolution. Now there is another whole theory of how molecules might have developed into life, and that theory, while also a scientific theory, is much less supported, and thus a much easier target for criticism. So I can’t blame you for wanting to change the subject to make your job easier. But don’t pretend that by doing so you are arguing against evolution.

This is getting convoluted.

We went back and the issue is not so clear when I posted the Church has been fighting against evolution from the beginning.

If we want to make the distinction pre-Darwin or post-Darwin that’s OK.

Molecules to man - that is a top tier issue. A lot of what we argue are sub tiers.

I responded to this rossum post:​

Evolution was originated by Charles Darwin in 1858 when he published his paper, together with Wallace’s paper, at the Linnaean Society.

It became better known a year later on the publication of “On the Origin of Species”. If you can show that one of the ancient Greeks came up with an equivalent theory for the origin of biological species, then I am sure that a large number of professors of Ancient Greek History would like to hear from you.

The creationist side tends to use “evolution” as a catch all for “any science or philosophy that goes against my interpretation of Genesis”. That is not the correct definition. Evolution is a scientific theory explaining how the genomes of a population of living organisms change in response to changes in their environment. The Catholic Church has no problem with that, and has said so.

rossum

---

I claimed it was not and went back to at least 7BC.

Rossum said - “Evolution is a scientific theory explaining how the genomes of a population of living organisms change in response to changes in their environment.”

I respond that definition fits adaptation or variation within. The Church has no problem with that definition at all.

Rossum - If you can show that one of the ancient Greeks came up with an equivalent theory for the origin of biological species, then I am sure that a large number of professors of Ancient Greek History would like to hear from you.

The Wiki article - Proposals that one type of animal, even humans, could descend from other types of animals, are known to go back to the first pre-Socratic Greek philosophers.

The origin of life is really relevant to discussions on evolution. If OOL research shows life to be front-loaded it indeed does challenge the modern synthesis. We already are seeing complexity early on.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Molecules to man - that is a top tier issue. A lot of what we argue are sub tiers.

Do you mean molecules to man is a more important topic, or that it is fundamental to the understanding of evolution, or what?

Rossum said - “Evolution is a scientific theory explaining how the genomes of a population of living organisms change in response to changes in their environment.”

I respond that definition fits adaptation or variation within. The Church has no problem with that definition at all.

The definition rossum gave may have been incomplete. Evolution as a scientific theory posits more than just adaptation or variaiton within a species, and I think both you and rossum knew that. So what value is there in pretending that he meant something else?

Rossum - If you can show that one of the ancient Greeks came up with an equivalent theory for the origin of biological species, then I am sure that a large number of professors of Ancient Greek History would like to hear from you.

The Wiki article - Proposals that one type of animal, even humans, could descend from other types of animals, are known to go back to the first pre-Socratic Greek philosophers.

I skimmed that article and did not find anything that said that specifically, but let’s suppose for sake of argument that rossum was wrong on that and that ancient Greek philosophers did propose that sort of thing. Even if that article doesn’t say so, it is not hard to imagine that some of those Greeks might have had such an idea. Score one point for you. So now you can say that the idea was “out there” for the Catholic Church to fight against. That is a long way from saying that the Church actually did oppose it, or if they did, that the idea they were opposing was similar enough to the modern scientific concept of evolution that the Church was or still does oppose it. Recent writing of the Church seem to say otherwise.

If OOL research shows life to be front-loaded it indeed does challenge the modern synthesis. We already are seeing complexity early on.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is OOL? And what do you mean by “front-loaded”? And what is the “modern synthesis”?

 

[buffalo]

Do you mean molecules to man is a more important topic, or that it is fundamental to the understanding of evolution, or what?

The definition rossum gave may have been incomplete. Evolution as a scientific theory posits more than just adaptation or variaiton within a species, and I think both you and rossum knew that. So what value is there in pretending that he meant something else?

I skimmed that article and did not find anything that said that specifically, but let’s suppose for sake of argument that rossum was wrong on that and that ancient Greek philosophers did propose that sort of thing. Even if that article doesn’t say so, it is not hard to imagine that some of those Greeks might have had such an idea. Score one point for you. So now you can say that the idea was “out there” for the Catholic Church to fight against. That is a long way from saying that the Church actually did oppose it, or if they did, that the idea they were opposing was similar enough to the modern scientific concept of evolution that the Church was or still does oppose it. Recent writing of the Church seem to say otherwise.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is OOL? And what do you mean by “front-loaded”? And what is the “modern synthesis”?

I guess skimming isn’t good enough.

This is right from it - The Wiki article - Proposals that one type of animal, even humans, could descend from other types of animals, are known to go back to the first pre-Socratic Greek philosophers.

Aahh, now we are getting somewhere. Established is that evolutionary thought is not new. The Church has defended itself since the beginning is the easier part. Resources here.

 

[buffalo]

D

Excuse my ignorance, but what is OOL? And what do you mean by “front-loaded”? And what is the “modern synthesis”?

Origin Of Life.

Front-loaded - life had the necessary information (programming) and building blocks right at the beginning. IDvolution

Modern Synthesis

The Modern Synthesis describes the fusion (merger) of Mendelian genetics with Darwinian evolution that resulted in a unified theory of evolution. It is sometimes referred to as the Neo-Darwinian theory. The Modern Synthesis was developed by a number of now-legendary evolutionary biologists in the 1930s and 1940s.

The modern synthesis is now being replaced by the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis which is focused on self-organization. My opinion is the odds are getting worse.

What it is boiling down to:

two Gods:

The Christian God - (creative reason)

or

the god of BUC - (blind unguided chance)

http://idvolution.blogspot.com/p/what-is-idvolution.html

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I guess skimming isn’t good enough.

This is right from it - The Wiki article - Proposals that one type of animal, even humans, could descend from other types of animals, are known to go back to the first pre-Socratic Greek philosophers.

I’m still having trouble finding it. I looked at both of the links you provided and the word “animal” only appears in one of them, and that occurence is on a different subject. So tell me which heading on which page I should look at.

Aahh, now we are getting somewhere. Established is that evolutionary thought is not new. The Church has defended itself since the beginning is the easier part. Resources here.

Can you give me some resources that are under vatican.va? Something with obvious authority would be nice.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Front-loaded - life had the necessary information (programming) and building blocks right at the beginning…

I’m not sure I see the contradiction between that and evolution. Do you mean that OOL research might discover biological structures inside the cells of fish that will naturally make that species of fish change into a walrus? I’m not sure what you are claiming is programmed.

 

[rossum]

Crystalized sugar or salt is so far from a complex cell

The sound you can hear is the goalposts being moved. Your initial question asked about “order” and “disorder”. I answered that question, and you obviously have no objection to my answer, because you are now moving on to a different question. If you didn’t want the answer I gave, then you shouldn’t have asked the question you did.

A complex cell evolves from a less complex precursor. That involves physics, chemistry and evolution. Evolution is yet another natural process that can increase complexity, though on occasions it can also reduce complexity.

Evolution is a process that copies information from the environment into the genomes of populations living in that environment. For example, the Arctic environment contains the information, “white things are difficult to see against a snowy background”. That information is copied, by evolution, into the genomes of animals living in the Arctic, so they have white fur. Increased information allows for increased complexity.

rossum

 

[rossum]

No one has any problem with change over time as anyone who has grown from infant to adult well knows. More specifically molecules to man is the issue.

Evolution is not “molecules to (Catholic) man”, because Catholic man includes a soul, which is not covered by evolution. No scientist, whether Catholic, theist or atheist, claims that the human soul evolved. Evolution is solely concerned with the origin of man’s physical body.

Pope John Paul II noted this separation: “Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God (“animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei”; “Humani Generis,” 36).” – Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996).

Evolution is concerned with the human body taking its origin from pre-existent matter. If you like, the clay mentioned in Genesis. Evolution does not deal with souls. There are no fossils of souls. Souls do not possess DNA. Souls do not form interbreeding populations. Souls are outwith evolution.

rossum

 

[johnnyjones]

The point of that example was as a counter to your statement when you said in post #344:

in which you were talking about the general process of creating order from disorder. rossum was just showing how you can indeed have something that looks like order arise from something that looks disordered. It was not meant to illustrate the kind of complexity of living cell. I thought it was a good illustration of the point.

Don’t you think that whether a certain astronaut did or did not say something about moon dust that it has a very tenuous connection to the question of evolution? Why should anyone keep checking on that side-track?

Armstrong statement was denied by your comrade. It was relevant because evolutionists had spoken about it for years and it caused fear and concern even though prior unmanned visits show different perceptions. It showed that the billions year science had troubles.

Ultimately though what do you get with this crystalization?
Sugar water. A living cell must come from this coagulated mess ,I mean the “real” coagulated mess, big bang.

 

[buffalo]

I’m still having trouble finding it. I looked at both of the links you provided and the word “animal” only appears in one of them, and that occurence is on a different subject. So tell me which heading on which page I should look at.

Can you give me some resources that are under vatican.va? Something with obvious authority would be nice.

Look under Antiquities, Greek - her is the link en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought#Antiquity

%between%

 

[buffalo]

I’m not sure I see the contradiction between that and evolution. Do you mean that OOL research might discover biological structures inside the cells of fish that will naturally make that species of fish change into a walrus? I’m not sure what you are claiming is programmed.

No - more like a genetic piano.

Imagine a piano player putting out different tunes everyday. He uses some of the 88 keys in different combinations to create beautiful music. Some pieces may use the same key combinations in different sequences and different places. Some will be altogether different.

Now imagine life. There are 500 or so conserved genes that all life has. From these all combinations can be built from provided instructions. (these 500 would be like the 88 keys on the piano.) So no a fish would not change into a walrus. The initial creature begins with the thought. Then the DNA language takes over to call upon the building blocks needed to make swimming creatures, walking creatures, flying creatures, etc…

So the information to program the DNA is primary. Once done the information necessary for the continuation of the creature is passed on through the mother.

 

[buffalo]

Evolution is not “molecules to (Catholic) man”, because Catholic man includes a soul, which is not covered by evolution. No scientist, whether Catholic, theist or atheist, claims that the human soul evolved. Evolution is solely concerned with the origin of man’s physical body.

Pope John Paul II noted this separation: “Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God (“animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei”; “Humani Generis,” 36).” – Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996).

Evolution is concerned with the human body taking its origin from pre-existent matter. If you like, the clay mentioned in Genesis. Evolution does not deal with souls. There are no fossils of souls. Souls do not possess DNA. Souls do not form interbreeding populations. Souls are outwith evolution.

rossum

I know evo’s downplay the connection. It is essentially a dodge. Evolution presupposes that life is simpler to complex. The direction of the arrow is up. OOL research is flipping that arrow so it is moving from complex to degenerating. I don’t know too many evo’s comfortable with its implications. So lets separate it out.

I wasn’t talking about the soul.

 

[Farsight001]

Armstrong statement was denied by your comrade.

No one ever denied the statement. You should read more carefully.

It showed that the billions year science had troubles.

A statement by armstrong shows only that he made a statement. Statements are not evidence or proof of anything.

 

[buffalo]

No more statements can be made, anymore by anybody. Everyone got that.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

No more statements can be made, anymore by anybody. Everyone got that.

No. Admit defeat. If you cant take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

 

[edwest2]

Evolution is not “molecules to (Catholic) man”, because Catholic man includes a soul, which is not covered by evolution. No scientist, whether Catholic, theist or atheist, claims that the human soul evolved. Evolution is solely concerned with the origin of man’s physical body.

Pope John Paul II noted this separation: “Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God (“animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei”; “Humani Generis,” 36).” – Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996).

Evolution is concerned with the human body taking its origin from pre-existent matter. If you like, the clay mentioned in Genesis. Evolution does not deal with souls. There are no fossils of souls. Souls do not possess DNA. Souls do not form interbreeding populations. Souls are outwith evolution.

rossum

Here it is. One claims, ‘this or that Pope is not a scientist,’ but it is painfully obvious that if a Pope utters anything positive about this theory - it matters and is the voice or belief of the Church. If another Pope argues against, then he becomes ‘not a scientist’ and his words become less significant than those uttered by another Pope.

We’re not talking about souls. That’s not the topic. Kids in school are being incompletely educated about the origin and development of the human being in the science class. Again, I’m not advocating adding religion to the science texts.

Peace,
Ed