Do you believe in evolution?

[rossum]

As stated, and as you point out - yes, HGT is not mutation.

It is not a mutation, but it is a variation in the genetics of the receiver. Natural selection works on heritable variations, however originated.

HGT is far more important for bacteria and protists than for metazoans.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

The Bible says that Adam’s body was made from clay/dust. That is, Adam’s material body was made from previously existing material precursors. That is the process evolution describes. Once Adam’s body was formed (it had “nostrils”) then, and only then did God breathe a soul into Adam. The process of evolution finished before that breathing, after evolution had formed Adam’s material body.

It’s not a human being without the soul.
If you’re saying that evolution claims that there were soulless human bodies existing somewhere, I’d like to see that reference.
Instead, what I’ve seen is that evolution developed humans from non-human species via material processes.
But they cannot be a human without the soul.
That’s consistent with Scripture and the teaching of St. Thomas and of the Church. In fact, that’s the only way to look at it.
You cannot have a soulless human person since the soul is what distinguishes a human being.
The soul is created from nothing. Thus, the human being does not exist without God’s direct creative action.
Evolution is false to claim otherwise, which it does.

 

[Neithan]

only a stubborn person would deny the obvious goal direction we find in the activities and functionality of living organisms including ourselves.

I completely agree, and this is what I think Pope Benedict XVI was trying to get at with his support of Intelligent Design — teleology is evident, and becoming more evident as we improve our means of studying life. There is plenty of philosophical gold to mine from Aquinas’s Fifth Way with the exciting advancements in modern biology. But we now have this pseudo-scientific ID movement that is confusing the whole issue.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

It is not a mutation

Confirmed. In case Dan123 is still reading - you made my argument for his sake. I wasn’t disputing your view on it.

 

[Hume]

only a stubborn person would deny the obvious goal direction we find in the activities and functionality of living organisms including ourselves.

No kidding and no barbs, I think the only obvious goal is persistence, even if it’s not a conscious goal.

Fish make more fish so they can keep fishin’ along.
Cats make more cats so they can keep cattin’ along.
So on…

 

[Bill_B_NY]

But we now have this pseudo-scientific ID movement that is confusing the whole issue.

I don’t follow that. ID merely points to teleology which is evident in observations of nature.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

No. Clotting came first, before a heart. Once the heart first evolved, clotting kept in step. Please read what I actually write, not what you think i write.

Blood clotting came before there was blood and a heart. Ok, it’s good to know what your beliefs are in this.

 

[Hume]

I don’t follow that. ID merely points to teleology which is evident in observations of nature.

And, again, no barbs - teleology is just an exercise in bias. You have to believe in purpose before you go looking for purpose.

Nature provides us with oceans of examples of “purpose” as an object of adaptability. The bird’s beak evolved a certain way because the change was more beneficial in eating the kind of food it encounters.

As far as “purpose” from the metaphysical perspective, it’s little wonder that such purpose is always always coincidentally nested in the metaphysical views of the claimant that they held before performing their teleological analysis.

 

[rossum]

The human body evolved and was at some point “ensouled” by the immaterial God in its ongoing evolution.

That is the solution allowed by the Catholic Church:

1. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

Humani Generis

This approach was confirmed by Pope John Paul II in his letter of 1996.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

There is nothing to say that God didn’t create the blind watchmaker, and only a stubborn person would deny the obvious goal direction we find in the activities and functionality of living organisms including ourselves.

If God created a mechanism to do something, then it’s not the Blind Watchmaker. Instead it is an Intelligently Designed mechanism - created for a purpose.

 

[Hume]

Too smart for your own good, Rossum.

 

[Neithan]

The ID that I’m familiar with was popularized by the Discovery Institute and doesn’t offer any kind of testable hypotheses. It’s a philosophical challenge to methodological naturalism. I think that misunderstands the purpose of natural science.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

You have to believe in purpose before you go looking for purpose.

Yes, the ability to argue, to separate truth from falsehood, are the starting points of purpose. We see goal-directed activity in nature. So, we believe in purpose.

The bird’s beak evolved a certain way because the change was more beneficial in eating the kind of food it encounters.

The giraffe’s neck got longer because it had to stretch up to get leaves at the top of the tree, as some have explained.

 

[Hume]

Yes, the ability to argue, to separate truth from falsehood, are the starting points of purpose. We see goal-directed activity in nature. So, we believe in purpose.

Sure, I guess I was just saying that “purpose” is a pretty big word that might need to be broken up or thrown out with additional adjectives.

I see no inherent metaphysical or theological purpose in the length of a giraffe’s neck. I do see a lot of purpose as it relates to mechanical adaptation.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

The ID that I’m familiar with was popularized by the Discovery Institute and doesn’t offer any kind of testable hypotheses.

I think it does offer testable hypotheses.

1. Can it be shown that entities in nature are best described as having been intelligently designed?
   We observe aspects of nature that show characteristics of design.
   The design hypothesis can be tested and falsified.
   All you have to do is show that the feature can be produced by non-design.

 

[Neithan]

Any “obvious goal” in nature, especially if it’s not conscious, is a fascinating study. It’s not exactly something for biology, but something for philosophy of biology, or meta-biology.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

I see no inherent metaphysical or theological purpose in the length of a giraffe’s neck. I do see a lot of purpose as it relates to mechanical adaptation.

The fact that you are able to observe, analyze, categorize and hypothesize about the giraffe is evidence of purpose.

 

[Hume]

Any “obvious goal” in nature, especially if it’s not conscious, is a fascinating study. It’s not exactly something for biology, but something for philosophy of biology, or meta-biology.

Which, again, I truly believe is just bias-exercise.

“How do I reinterpret this to support the other, unrelated things I believe?”

 

[Dan123]

Philosophical evidence. Immaterial entities cannot emerge from material causes.

Everything we can directly observe about intelligence is rooted in the material world. You can propose there’s ‘more to it’ but you’d also need to demonstrate it. The brain is a material entity so a material cause isn’t an issue.

If the creature does not go through a mutation as you describe, then HGT is not possible?

No, I said it a creature has a mutation that it can be transferred to offspring.

In my religious view, God is creator and created, from nothing, the human soul.
Evolution conflicts with this.

Evolution says nothing about the soul.

From an atheistic perspective, evolution is true.

There are atheists who don’t believe in evolution just like there was Christians who do. In fact most people in the US who believe in evolution would be christian just based on statistics.

Both atheists and fundamentalists will insist that the two are completely opposed and don’t fit, but that shows their similar approach to scripture.

I don’t personally hear many atheists saying theyre incompatible, largely because there’s a lot of different ways people interpret scripture and many of those aren’t incompatible at all.

 

[Hume]

The fact that you are able to observe, analyze, categorize and hypothesize about the giraffe is evidence of purpose.

Sure. A longer neck increased the odds for survival.

I didn’t need to appeal to the Brahman to make that case, narrowing my scope for “purpose”.