Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Clearly, this is not true, since the numbers of humans is growing. By either Biblical or scientific standards, human beings are massively successful.

Yes, you can look at human behaviors, and complain about rapes, about murder, about physical traits that you think are a sign of imperfection. But the whole point of science is that your SUBJECTIVE assessment is irrelevant-- the numbers do not lie.

There are lots of us, and we demonstrate an ongoing capacity for survival and reproduction. God said “be fruitful and multiply,” and boy have we done a bang-up job of obeying that particular command!
 
Last edited:
We agree about little, but with this, I agree with you 100%.

The science-minded often say things like, “Sure. . . we can’t explain the mind NOW, but I’m sure science will eventually figure out the relationship between material and mind. Anyway, science is obviously a better bet than religion for discovering things like this.”

Anyone who believes in science and says this should be ashamed of himself, as this is absolutely an expression of faith, and unfounded faith at that. There is, in fact, absolutely NO credible theory of mind in science-- why it exists in material systems rather than not existing, I mean. When pushed to explain, a scientist will spin an evolutionary yarn “Well, obviously consciousness must have provided some benefit to our genetic fitness blah blah balh.”

The REASON this is an automatic fail is that we cannot make observations of minds. All we can do is observe so-called “neural correlates of mind” like brain function. But as soon as you do this, you’ve made a philosophical choice that begs the question: you’ve already ASSUMED what mind is, and so all the science you do naturally points back to that assumption.

Here’s the question to ask: “Given any material system OTHER THAN an animal brain (say something we find in space), how would we know if it really feels and experiences?”

The answer is-- we choose to believe so if it seems so to us. And that is really un-scientific.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
This does not prove “common design” is a better explanation than common descent. Common descent does not require that God be deceiver. And common design is not obvious. People say something is “obvious” when they have no idea how to prove it.
Click to expand...
Over and over I have posted current science links showing common design. Maybe you just ignored them.
Click to expand...
And I posted refutations of your theories. Perhaps you just ignored them.
 
Shakuhachi said:
It is hard for me to accept that people actually still believe in a literal, historical Adam and Eve.
Click to expand...
That would be due to Humani Generis’ saying (paraphrase) “It is no way apparent how polygenism can be reconciled with Catholic faith.” Now there are some attempts being made to reconcile. One method I find intriguing is A&E as first parents of us all with their true human children having children non-true humans, but genetically near-indistinguishable, and having more true humans. Until everyone has A&E in their heritage for the soul, spiritual monigenism, but genetic polygenism. Thomisticevolution.org has another potential explanation of things that I cannot accurately summarize, but it’s 4 essays starting with this one: http://www.thomisticevolution.org/d...city-of-adam-and-eve-part-i-theological-data/

And I will say that between thise two, I’d go with the first which definitely has a true Adam and Eve. The reason being that the genetic issues are out of the way. Then, theologically speaking, A&E are saints. In addition, Jesus and Mary as the new A&E works much better when there was initially only A&E.
 
buffalo said:
I do, the Church does and many more do. What is your best case that they did not exist?
Click to expand...
The Church believes in two “true humans”, that is humans with human souls. Science has nothing to say about souls. All science can say is concerning the overall population of both true humans and ‘almost humans’ who were biologically compatible with the true humans.

What does the Church say about DNA compatibility between Hominids?

rossum
 
buffalo said:
Science will never close some of these gaps, no matter what they tell you.
Click to expand...
The gaps are filled with “randomness”, chaos, an uncaused universe doing its thing, in the sense that it would have no efficient or final cause, and a formal cause built into its material cause, these themselves having no reason to exist. Nothing is believed to exist outside of this, no miracles and no direction now or even at the beginning. Such considerations are considered to be outside of its purview. And thus the use of the word “random”, which is then taken to mean what the word implies, that all this diversity is the result of happenstance, rather than what is the reality - a Cause outside the realm of what we call the material. The metaphysical/ontological/existential contains the material, so that if one wants to know the truth of creation one must step beyond the simplistic picture that modern evolutionary theories have been presenting.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
It may seem like it’s beyond one’s pay grade to figure it out, but we needn’t accept everything we are told. I would appreciate your answering a couple of questions to start:
  • How do you imagine these changes in the genome and in the accompanying cell processes, take place in order to affect a change such as, let’s say sexual reproduction?
  • If you believe that species exist, and strict evolutionists would not, and are not merely an invention for communication purposes having no underlying reality, what are they?
Click to expand...
To the first question, it’s best to google “speciation” as there are numerous links that can help you with that. Genes are not a constant as they can and do change due to various factors. And in recent decades we’re finding that the phenotypes (what shows) may vary somewhat even if from the same genotype (genetic makeup)

I really don’t understand the 2nd question. “Species” do exist, as we well know, but they are not static entities. Generally speaking, we most often use that terminology to refer to organisms that can only mate together and produce fertile offspring, but we sometimes use it to signify differing breeds. One has to take the word in its context. .
 
Metis1 said:
“Species” do exist, as we well know, but they are not static entities.
Click to expand...
I exist, You exist. This computer exists. I suppose that species exit as do computers - a general term or category of things that actually do exist.

I think that there are in fact “kinds” of things, “souls” that makes them what they are in themselves, that do exist regardless of our categories. These are generally not congruent with our idea of species as we have defined them scientifically.

Let’s take ourselves as an example. A person exists. So does one humanity, as more than a collection of individuals, but rather as something real - the body of Christ, fallen in Adam, of which we are all individual manfestations, separated even within ourselves as a result of original sin, and made whole through Love.

So, as we have defined them, species represents an illusion. The reality behind them, however, that which we know and to which we give names such as bird and reptile, I believe does exist. It is not so much static, but rather ontologically fixed at the foundation of what the particluar thing is, be it an atom, a bacterium, a plant, animal, or human being. Organisms, we can say manifest themselves, or alternatively, are brought into physical existence individually, as expressions of the truth that is the particular soul or beingness of the creature, providing it with the attributes that make it what it is.

I was unable to communicate what I intended by the first question. It is quite precise and speciation does not come close to being any sort of answer because it is part of the question itself. It’s a bit unfair in that it is seemingly way above anyone’s pay grade. I tried to make it understandable by referring to a specific trait, that of sexual reproduction.

What “evolutionary” changes do you imagine as having happened in living organisms that brought about sexual reproduction?

By the way, I would suggest you not waste your time asking me to refer to Google in your responses. Should you wish to mention a source which backs up any of your claims, please provide the quote you would want me to consider and the link. I’m more interested in what you think anyway and I have an appreciation of the science and opinions that are out there. The aim here as in all of our daily lives, has to do with growing in faith. This topic provides insight into some of the pit-falls and obstacles in our search for the truth.
 
Last edited:
And now we see the god of BUC (blind unguided chance) creating encryption codes so the target is the only one to be able to read it. Fantastic stuff this evolution! 😀

Encrypted messages in biological processes

In recent years, research has shown an unprecedented impact of RNA modifications at all steps of the maturation process. More than a hundred RNA modifications have been identified with roles in both inhibiting and facilitating binding to proteins, DNA and other RNA molecules. This encryption by RNA modification is a way to prevent the message of the RNA in being read by the wrong recipients.

http://mbg.au.dk/en/news-and-events/news-item/artikel/encrypted-messages-in-biological-processes/
 
Aloysium said:
What “evolutionary” changes do you imagine as having happened in living organisms that brought about sexual reproduction?

By the way, I would suggest you not waste your time asking me to refer to Google in your responses. Should you wish to mention a source which backs up any of your claims, please provide the quote you would want me to consider and the link. I’m more interested in what you think anyway and have an appreciation of the science and opinions that are out there. The aim here as in all of our daily lives, has to do with growing in faith. This topic provides insight into some of the pit-falls and obstacles in our search for the truth.
Click to expand...
We do not know what started the process of sexual reproduction for what should be obvious reasons. Nor should one assume that it was all just by accident. As scientists (I’m a retired anthropologist), we cannot draw conclusions based on having no or very little evidence.

To your last point, the basic ToE does not present any obstacle to having the belief that God caused all.
 
buffalo said:
And now we see the god of BUC (blind unguided chance)
Click to expand...
To repeat my comment from another thread, where you posted this same observation:

Your knowledge of of evolution obviously lacks the presence of natural selection. Natural selection is not “blind unguided chance”, so your comment is of no relevance to evolution.

In case you had not noticed, evolution, which includes natural selection, can result in very complex systems. The presence of complexity on its own neither confirms nor denies evolution as a cause.

rossum
 
Your personal opinion is noted. Where is your supporting evidence? Science relies on evidence,

rossum
 
Those reasons are not so obvious to me. Could you give me one.

Random chemical acivity has been proposed as a mechanism. That makes no sense to me and is incompatible what I know of the workings of matter. Experience in chemistry labs tends to make one aware of how difficult it can be to get things to work out within acceptable limits of error even in the most controllable conditions.

Let’s get to the specifics of how sexual reproduction could have evolved.

There is the issue of intermediate structures and physiology that should be still present given that they would not have been deleterious to the survival of evolving asexual species. An expected plethora of such organisms would be convincing evidence of evolution.

The fact that sexual reproduction appears to provide an advantage for the survival of a species, I would consider it peripheral.

Unfortunately, those who weave a story of evolution blind themselves to final causes, thinking it to be unscientific. In accumulating data, its worth lies primarily in pointing us in the right direction, However, in making sense of what we find, it is crucial.

Sex plays a central role in brining about the diversity we find in nature, tied as it is to variations in perceptions, emotions, and behaviour, the beauty involved not only in those aspects of the creatures’ existence, but also in their material presentation.

Let’s focus on the end product, a sexual living thing as a direct offspring of one which self-replicated. Given that we do not find any evidence for the existence of intermediate organisms, which we should, if we cannot propose a testable hypothesis as to how this could have arisen, it seems clear to me that the paradigm we are using to interpret the presence of a myriad of life forms, evolution, is inadequate.

We may search for the material remants of creatures long gone, but they are part of a mosaic that goes far beyond the material, and when we try to place the tiles together in accordance with the rules we imagine govern the physical and biological, we come up with a distortion of reality.

I am rather surprised that no one in any of these threads has been able to describe how God caused it all to happen. Once we are doing more than juxtaposing words, but actually try to formulate what did occur, we find that we go back to Genesis. We are no longer speaking of evolution, unless of course that god is deistic and solely transcendent to His creation, carrying on in accordance to the clockwork he would have established. God not only caused it all, but causes it all. As He gives matter the properties that make it what it is, so too He brings into existence those more complex forms of being such as plants, animals and we ourselves, each one a spiritual psychosomatic unity. It is always best to view this subject in terms of creation if one is interested in understanding the world and its origins - same basic evidence, but a very different story.
 
Aloysium said:
Once we are doing more than juxtaposing words, but actually try to formulate what did occur, we find that we go back to Genesis.
Click to expand...
There is nothing there that tells us anything other than theology. Besides that, It leads to incest. Who did the children of Adam and Eve mate with other than themselves?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
If you are speaking only of physical processes that lead to the body of modern man, then yes, that is a proper branch of science. If one tries to use “science” to make philosophical claims about the ultimate cause of our existence, that person is stepping outside the rules of science.
Click to expand...
We are a unity of body and spirit, The spirit is said to be the form of the body. As persons are each one individual expression of mankind, one being existing in relation to everything that is other to the self. Everything includes God, the Source of our existence and all its components. These, at the end of our lives will decompose back to the earth that we are, currently it’s existence one with our own.

The rules of modern science, although they encompass the largest and smallest of things, are like the a street light illuminating a very small area of existence. What is most important and lost in our ignorance lies outside its scope. While it is very good about describing the physical processes occurring in our bodies, to extrapolate that information onto what went on at the beginnings, ignoring what are the basic causes, leads us to the illusion of evolution.

The raw data actually favours creation.
 
Even if God set all these things into place, it doesn’t matter much to us, unless we can find a way to benefit from our understanding.

Let’s assume that God created all that exists. Fine. How does that help us stop disease, or create GMOs that grow better, or cure genetic damage?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top