Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[niceatheist]

This is where you and I diverge. I actually do not see the need for a Prime Mover at all. It could very well be turtles all the way down (metaphorically). And I can’t imagine why “parts” makes any difference. If the universe, at the moment of the Big Bang was largely a homogeneous superheated goo where physical particles and energy as we know them didn’t exist, prior to the expansion and cooling allowing quantum effects to introduce heterogeneous features, not to mention the breaking of the assumed symmetry that existed between all the fundamental phyiscal interactions, then there are no “parts”. In this line of conjecture, “parts” (as in discrete types of matter, energy and even the physical interactions between them) are a product of the evolution of the universe after the Big Bang.

But that even presumes there is a beginning, as such. After all, when physicists and cosmologists talk about the Universe, they’re talking about those regions that we can observe; the Observable Universe. While that may be finite in time and size, that’s like looking at a bay in the ocean and declaring that’s all the ocean that there is.

So to repeat myself, I don’t accept the need of a Prime Mover, nor do I buy into Aristotelian views of motion and whatever else is dredged up to try ringfence God from the logical conclusion that if the Universe needs a Prime Mover, then so does God.

I could be wrong, of course. Since we really can’t push back any further than the first instances after the Big Bang, there’s no way to probe any of this conjecture. There are models, currently unsupportable by any data, that talk about a metaverse and “branes” which encapsulate individual universes, but these again only push the question back. My view is the single inherent problem in all of this is that humans are just very bad at fully conceiving of infinity. What if existence, whether that be the Observable Universe, or some even larger entity, truly is infinite; without beginning, self-caused, or even not caused at all?

Is there some reason to even expect that causality would apply to such a region? That seems a bit of a bias; that just because the region we live in obeys causality, that that must apply to other regions; or that it always applied even to this region.

 

[Techno2000]

This is where you and I diverge. I actually do not see the need for a Prime Mover at all. It could very well be turtles all the way down (metaphorically). And I can’t imagine why “parts” makes any difference. If the universe, at the moment of the Big Bang was largely a homogeneous superheated goo where physical particles and energy as we know them didn’t exist, prior to the expansion and cooling allowing quantum effects to introduce heterogeneous features, not to mention the breaking of the assumed symmetry that existed between all the fundamental phyiscal interactions, then there are no “parts”. In this line of conjecture, “parts” (as in discrete types of matter, energy and even the physical interactions between them) are a product of the evolution of the universe after the Big Bang.

But that even presumes there is a beginning, as such. After all, when physicists and cosmologists talk about the Universe, they’re talking about those regions that we can observe; the Observable Universe. While that may be finite in time and size, that’s like looking at a bay in the ocean and declaring that’s all the ocean that there is.

So to repeat myself, I don’t accept the need of a Prime Mover, nor do I buy into Aristotelian views of motion and whatever else is dredged up to try ringfence God from the logical conclusion that if the Universe needs a Prime Mover, then so does God.

I could be wrong, of course. Since we really can’t push back any further than the first instances after the Big Bang, there’s no way to probe any of this conjecture. There are models, currently unsupportable by any data, that talk about a metaverse and “branes” which encapsulate individual universes, but these again only push the question back. My view is the single inherent problem in all of this is that humans are just very bad at fully conceiving of infinity. What if existence, whether that be the Observable Universe, or some even larger entity, truly is infinite; without beginning, self-caused, or even not caused at all?

Is there some reason to even expect that causality would apply to such a region? That seems a bit of a bias; that just because the region we live in obeys causality, that that must apply to other regions; or that it always applied even to this region.

But, you’re still stuck with something coming from nothing which defies logic .

 

[niceatheist]

But, you’re still stuck with something coming from nothing which defies logic .

No, it defies what we view as causality. To say it is illogical would mean having to understand the physical principles at play at that epoch, which we don’t. And really, invoking a Prime Mover doesn’t help, because you end up with a bit of special pleading “ah well, you see, this entity isn’t bound by the principle that I declare necessitates said entity’s existence.”

I’ll say it again, the problem Aristotle had, and that all us poor finite beings have, is trying to actually comprehend that existence may simply have no starting point at all.

 

[Hereiam]

The science of creation is not the message God intended.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

But, you’re still stuck with something coming from nothing which defies logic .

No, it defies what we view as causality. To say it is illogical would mean having to understand the physical principles at play at that epoch, which we don’t. And really, invoking a Prime Mover doesn’t help, because you end up with a bit of special pleading “ah well, you see, this entity isn’t bound by the principle that I declare necessitates said entity’s existence.”

I’ll say it again, the problem Aristotle had, and that all us poor finite beings have, is trying to actually comprehend that existence may simply have no starting point at all.

The lengths some people will go to avoid God and the guilt of their sins amazes me.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

Techno2000:

But, you’re still stuck with something coming from nothing which defies logic .

No, it defies what we view as causality. To say it is illogical would mean having to understand the physical principles at play at that epoch, which we don’t. And really, invoking a Prime Mover doesn’t help, because you end up with a bit of special pleading “ah well, you see, this entity isn’t bound by the principle that I declare necessitates said entity’s existence.”

I’ll say it again, the problem Aristotle had, and that all us poor finite beings have, is trying to actually comprehend that existence may simply have no starting point at all.

The lengths some people will go to avoid God and the guilt of their sins amazes me.

Well isn’t that nice. We’re having a nice philosophical discussion, and then you decide I’m a moral reprobate trying to whitewash my sins.

 

[Techno2000]

Well isn’t that nice. We’re having a nice philosophical discussion, and then you decide I’m a moral reprobate trying to whitewash my sins.

Sorry, I guess you’re right :hugs:

 

[Rau]

And it wasn’t meant to be nice. Anyone saying “Oh look at carbon dating problems, see how that falsifies evolution” understands neither carbon dating or the kinds of dating used on fossils.

Of greater concern is the scientific understanding of one who asserts - contrary to endless science - that every life form that has ever existed on earth was created 5778 years ago. You’d think such a person has the opportunity to make a name for himself in science. And Glark proposes to study physics. Seems a waste.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

Well isn’t that nice. We’re having a nice philosophical discussion, and then you decide I’m a moral reprobate trying to whitewash my sins.

Sorry, I guess you’re right :hugs:

No problem. Us moral reprobates have thick skins

At any rate, I can assure you I’m not an atheist because I want to do nasty things. I’m actually an astonishingly boring person. I’m way too lazy to do any big sins. Those require effort.

 

[rossum]

Isn’t God the ultimate Occam’s Razor… or is that too simple for atheists ?

Either the Jewish YHWH or the Moslem Allah beat the Christian God in the Occam stakes. A unitary God is simpler than the Trinitarian God. If all Christians became Unitarian you might have a shot…

rossum

 

[rossum]

There are models, currently unsupportable by any data, that talk about a metaverse and “branes” which encapsulate individual universes, but these again only push the question back.

Some of the models can be tested. You run them forward and see what sort of universe results. If it doesn’t match the universe we have then that model is wrong. That still leaves a lot of possible models.

For example the de Sitter universe does not describe the current universe, but might be a correct description of the universe in the far future when it has expanded far beyond its current size.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The lengths some people will go to avoid God and the guilt of their sins amazes me.

The lengths some people will go to avoid their karma amazes me.

Sin is a Christian concept. Some atheists are avoiding other religions.

rossum

 

[theCardinalbird]

Sin is a Christian concept

As it is a just concept/reality that shouldn’t be ignored

 

[Techno2000]

I don’t want to ruffle any dinosaur feathers.

 

[Bradskii]

rossum:

Techno2000:

Do you think they would have felt guilty about eating their future selves ?

OK, let’s pick out two obvious errors in that.

• do animals feel guilt?
• if birds have already evolved then those other dinosaurs are not ancestors of birds.

Ask yourself, does a sparrowhawk feel guilty when it kills a sparrow and eats it?

Not one of your better posts I’m afraid.

rossum

Do you really think I was being serious ?

I’m afraid that the level of knowledge exhibited in this thread regarding evolution by those who deny it means that a truly bizarre comment such as yours is quite likely to be taken seriously.

I’m beginning to think that when they changed the forum, they transfered my membership to the junior section…

 

[fisherman_carl]

We were talking about the beginning of the universe. But, actually Aquinas’ prime mover argument and his first cause argument are not about a first cause in the order of time. Aquinas didn’t think that one could prove philosophically that the universe could not be infinite. His unmoved mover and first cause arguments had to do with a prime mover or a first cause of existence or of change at any moment. There can not be an infinite amount of causes in such examples. That is why there must be a first cause, not in order of time, but first in a series of causes.

If you look at my post a little while back I gave some examples of this sort of argument. For example, the cup resting on the table is supported by the table. And the table is supported by the floor, and the floor is supported by the earth. The first cause in this example is the earth. There can not be infinite causes for the cup to be held up. But each cause derives its power from the first cause. The table derives its causal powers to hold up the cup from the floor. The floor derives its powers to hold up the table from the ground or earth. The series requires that each cause derives its power from the previous cause. And, importantly that the previous cause continues in existence. If you take away the floor for instance at any moment the table loses its causal power. Therefore, in this sequence that requires all causes to be in effect simultaneously and each cause derives its causal power from the previous at every moment there can not be infinite amount of causes. There must be a first cause.

Whereas in causes that occur in time sequentially, the next cause does not require the previous cause to stay in existence. For example, the son of a father can continue to exist after the father dies. This could potentially allow for an infinite number of causes to precede backwards in time, which Aquinas thought could not be disproven. Although, William Lane Craig and others try to disprove an infinite past with the Kalam cosmological argument.

When one then considers the cause of a person’s existence at any moment, this too is a series of causes for which each cause must all be in effect at any moment and for which each cause derives its causal power from the previous, so that there must be a first cause.

To give a crude example of such a sequence we could say the cause a person’s existence is the organs working together in his body. The cause of his organs is his cells. The cause of his cells are the atoms that make up his cells. The cause of the atoms being held in existence is the electrons and protons. We could keep going down the list, but ultimately we must come to a first cause from which every other cause derives its existence.

Then we can ask what does it mean to be a first cause in existence in this series. It must be uncaused since it would not be the first cause if it requires a cause. Therefore its essence must be its existence. That is its essence is to exist. And from which it can pass existence on to the secondary causes in the sequence which ultimately causes a person to exist at any moment.

 

[Techno2000]

The table derives its causal powers to hold up the cup from the floor. The floor derives its powers to hold up the table from the ground or earth. The series requires that each cause derives its power from the previous cause.

One can apply this to evolution, how was life supported when there was no food chain in place ?

 

[fisherman_carl]

I am no expert on Evolution, but I would think that the food/energy sources would have to be in place first. Simple organisms like some plants survive from the sun as well as from nutrients in its direct environment. It would make sense that plants would need to exist before animals. The first living organisms would have to be simple and would be a foundation for other organisms to come on the scene.

However, I am not convinced that such processes of increasingly complex organisms over time would naturally occur to the complexity it has occurred, without any guidance or help. This whole process even getting started appears to be a difficult problem to explain.

Nevertheless, a system of nature that increases in complexity over time makes sense to me from the point of view of a designer. If I was for instance going to design a system that involved complex relationships between its subjects, then starting out simpler and gradually increasing complexity until the desired result is achieved makes sense. So as to give time for each thing within the system to work together. And it seems like nature does work together in a kind of relationship that has been ironed out over eons.

 

[Techno2000]

The first carnivore came from the first vegetarian. The only thing the first carnivore had to eat was the vegetarian, so I guess you can say evolution ate itself.

 

[Glark]

Who’s saying that? The position here contrary to yours is merely that six-day creation isn’t literal, not that God isn’t involved in creation

From Finding Darwin’s God, by Dr. Kenneth Miller:

“random, undirected process of mutation had produced the ‘right’ kind of variation for natural selection to act upon” (p. 51)
“a random, undirected process like evolution” (p. 102)
“blind, random, undirected evolution [could] have produced such an intricate set of structures and organs, so brilliantly dedicated to a single purpose” (p. 137)
“the random, undirected processes of mutation and natural selection” (p. 145)
“Evolution is a natural process, and natural processes are undirected” (p. 244)