Do you believe in evolution?

[rossum]

Evolution claims to have an explanation for the origin of human beings.
You are saying that this is incorrect.
I can cite the literature for you, if you’d like.

Evolution does have an explanation for the origin of the material human body. That is all. Evolution does not explain the origin of souls (human, animal or angelic) nor does it claim to.

You want an explanation for the origin of the human knee, then look to evolution. You want an explanation for the origin of the human atman then ask your local Hindu guru.

 

[rossum]

That’s de fide Catholic doctrine.

I am Buddhist, not Catholic. I have no requirement to follow Catholic doctrine. There is no requirement to be Catholic to study evolution, though it is not a disqualification either.

 

[rossum]

The evolution of blood clotting is one open question for evolution, as I see it (and other scientists agree).

It is an open question for theology as well. What steps did God take and in what order and when?

When the function of blood clotting was not present on earth, what stopped blood flow from killing every creature that got a slightest blood flow (cut, scrape, blemish)?

The first organisms did not have hearts, so their blood systems were low pressure, not high pressure. Some very simple clotting system would have been sufficient, something similar to the system found in insects today – they have a low pressure circulatory system.

With the evolution of a heart and the consequent increase in blood pressure any organisms without a sufficiently fast-acting clotting system would die, as you point out. Natural selection would remove those genes from the population. The action of natural selection would keep the efficiency of the clotting system in step with the increase in blood pressure.

There is all sorts of hand-waving about how blood clotting evolved, but I haven’t seen a good answer to the question about what happened on earth before blood clotting existed.

Your claim of “hand waving” merely shows that you have not studied the topic: The Evolution of Vertebrate Blood Clotting. Ken Miller, one of the authors of that piece is Catholic.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

I am Buddhist, not Catholic. I have no requirement to follow Catholic doctrine. There is no requirement to be Catholic to study evolution, though it is not a disqualification either.

Evolution is a minor issue in the differences of our belief systems. It does not make much sense to argue about a topic where we have two completely different definitions of the same concepts and terms.
The correct way to proceed is to find some reconciliation on the religious and philosophical differences first.
For example, in the Iroquois Indian traditional religion it is believed that the Coyote, Crow, and other creatures got together to create four two-legged beings, who became the ancestors of the Iroquois people.
Now, if you were an Iroquois, it would not make sense for me to argue about how the Crow created those creatures, since I do not believe in that religious story.
In the same way, I do not accept the Buddhist ideas on the creation of the world (that it is not right to conjecture about it):

Buddha, in the Acintita Sutta, is supposed to have said, “Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.”

I don’t agree with that, or the Hindu ideas on the creation of the world either.

In my religious view, God is creator and created, from nothing, the human soul.
Evolution conflicts with this.
If there was scientific evidence to support evolution on this (that the human soul is created by physical, material entities), then that would be different. But there is none.
So, evolution is false from my perspective.
From an atheistic perspective, evolution is true.
But I do not find atheism itself to be true - and therefore evolution is not proven true just because it is consistent with atheism. On the contrary, evolution requires atheism - as I mentioned, since there is a denial of the immaterial soul as a necessary and active component of human beings - -as the Catholic Faith teaches.

I find the Catholic Faith to have a higher truth level than science does. The Catholic Faith was revealed by God - through Jesus Christ. It is validated by the miracles and resurrection of Christ - and the 2000 years of testimonial witness since then,
I do not find that in Buddhism or Hinduism. Or in any other religion.
So, if the Catholic Faith is true, then everything must be consistent with it.

 

[rossum]

Rossum mentioned HGT - horizontal gene transfer, which is not a mutation-selection mechanism. So, if a person said (which almost nobody does or should) that “evolution is natural selection acting on random mutations”, then they are falsified by HGT.

Natural selection happens after the gene transfer. Is the gene useful in its new host? If yes, then NS will propagate more copies of that gene. Is the gene deleterious in its new host? Then NS will reduce and eliminate that gene from that host. Is the gene neutral in its new host? Then NS ignores is and the gene follows neutral drift.

This is the same as with mutations. Natural selection happens after the mutation happens. Is the mutation neutral, deleterious or beneficial?

Mutation or HGT first; natural selection second.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

With the evolution of a heart and the consequent increase in blood pressure any organisms without a sufficiently fast-acting clotting system would die, as you point out. Natural selection would remove those genes from the population. The action of natural selection would keep the efficiency of the clotting system in step with the increase in blood pressure.

You’re proposing that heart and clot evolved simultaneously, each receiving the right mutations synchronized together for a gradual, mutual evolution.
I do not find that convincing.

 

[rossum]

It’s non-mutational, and thus a refutation of Darwinism.

Read Darwin please, before criticising him. Darwin talks about “variation”, and HGT is a way to introduce variation into a population.

Mutation was only introduced into the theory later, after Mendel’s work was incorporated in the early 20th century.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Mutation or HGT first

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

Thus, a belief that mutations and selection are evolution is falsified by HGT.

 

[Neithan]

Just subjectively, but evolution always felt to me like it fits nicely with the creation story in Genesis. 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 never felt there was a problem with it, even though I was aware of controversies in school when some parents didn’t want a human evolution textbook used. It wasn’t until a university anthropology class when the professor spoke about how she “grew up” and lost her faith that I really grasped how serious and widespread a crisis this was for so many people, and that academia long ago somehow assumed that it was irreconcilable.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Mutation was only introduced into the theory later, after Mendel’s work was incorporated in the early 20th century.

It was proposed as the driver of variation. That’s how the theory works.
Someone says “it’s mutation and selection”.
Then someone discovers that is wrong. As they did.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

It wasn’t until a university anthropology class when the professor spoke about how she “grew up” and lost her faith that I really grasped how serious and widespread a crisis this was for so many people, and that academia long ago somehow assumed that it was irreconcilable.

Yes, people believe evolutionary falsehoods and end up denying God. This is indeed a crisis with tragic consequences.

 

[rossum]

Immaterial entities cannot emerge from material causes.
It’s a conflict of essences.

That is theology, not science. Buddhist ‘theology’ denies the existence of essences.

 

[Hume]

I used to, but now I’m more and more convinced that evolution makes no sense.

It’s a collection of theories continually being investigated and honed by the scientific community.

There simply isn’t a better answer.

 

[Hume]

Immaterial entities cannot emerge from material causes.

That’s a pretty easy fix for the theist.

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

…

Sorry Rossum, no idea why the reply is aimed at you rather than Bill. No idea how to fix it, thus the explanation.

 

[IWantGod]

It wasn’t until a university anthropology class when the professor spoke about how she “grew up” and lost her faith that I really grasped how serious and widespread a crisis this was for so many people, and that academia long ago somehow assumed that it was irreconcilable.

As more of the world becomes explainable through the lens of the scientific method there is a temptation to believe that everything is somehow a natural process. This is due to a misunderstanding on both sides of the debate. Both the Atheist and the Christian in this discussion tend to have unfounded assumptions about the world God created. The idea that God set up a system that naturally unfolds into a plurality of forms, a gradual actualisation of cosmic possibilities, is a wonderful way of looking at creation. 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.

 

[rossum]

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

No it does not.

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.

You are ignoring what Thomas Aquinas said:

“In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”

Summa

You are in danger of exposing your scripture to ridicule. Do you really want to be put into the same category as Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and the other bible waving evolution deniers. Better to follow Thomas Aquinas’ advice and find a different interpretation.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

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

Ok, but it is not a “human” body without a soul. But yes, theistic evolution would make this claim. God created a being with a soul. Creationism. As much as they don’t like that concept.

 

[Hume]

Ok, but it is not a “human” body without a soul.

If you want to argue that the semantic of equating “human” with “homosapien” isn’t right, then fine I guess. But convincing people of that might be some tough sledding.

 

[rossum]

You’re proposing that heart and clot evolved simultaneously

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.

 

[Hume]

Bill_B_NY:

You’re proposing that heart and clot evolved simultaneously

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.

Huh. Didn’t know that. Interesting.