Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[HarryStotle]

Suppose after all the forensics are done on the bullet and on the gun, the lab report is conclusive that there is no chance at all that bullet in the man’s body could possibly have come from the gun and the man with the gun still insists, “God did it.”

There are a number of aspects with regard to the unfolding of the universe and the genesis of life on the earth narratives where the simple probability of either happening by chance is absurdly small and not so easily explained.

The fine tuning of the thirty or more cosmological constants with each other to permit the formation of key elements, particularly carbon; the intricate sequencing within amino acid chains to form functional proteins; and the sequencing of nucleotides within the DNA molecules are all inexplicable from the standpoint of science, so I wouldn’t consider the “God did it” hypothesis with regard to the cosmology of the universe and the genesis of life on earth to be in any way comparable to your analogy.

 

[niceatheist]

Suppose after all the forensics are done on the bullet and on the gun, the lab report is conclusive that there is no chance at all that bullet in the man’s body could possibly have come from the gun and the man with the gun still insists, “God did it.”

There are a number of aspects with regard to the unfolding of the universe and the genesis of life on the earth narratives where the simple probability of either happening by chance is absurdly small and not so easily explained.

The fine tuning of the thirty or more cosmological constants with each other to permit the formation of key elements, particularly carbon; the intricate sequencing within amino acid chains to form functional proteins; and the sequencing of nucleotides within the DNA molecules are all inexplicable from the standpoint of science, so I wouldn’t consider the “God did it” hypothesis with regard to the cosmology of the universe and the genesis of life on earth to be in any way comparable to your analogy.

The basic problem with any probability argument is that we have a sample size of precisely one at this point; whether that be a planet with life, or the Universe itself. You simply cannot make grand statistical proclamations based upon one data point.

And frankly, I would think the fine tuning argument would cause as many, if not more problems for theists than for atheists, since now it raises the specter of God being limited in His actions, that only certain kinds of universes are capable of supporting complex types of matter like living organisms.

 

[fisherman_carl]

So are you saying that everything that confuses you is not true? God not being the author of confusion does not mean that we will never be confused about things that are difficult to understand. Quantum mechanics for instance or even geometry can be confusing for people. But that doesn’t invalidate it. The bible itself can be confusing at times. Just look how many people have created divisions over interpretations of the Bible. They disagree and start their own church. Yet it doesn’t invalidate the bible. It just means that not everyone agrees on how to interpret it. For Catholics we have the magisterium who helps us settle these issues. And the Church says that truth can not contradict truth. So if something is true in God’s creation it does not contradict his revelation to us. Thus, we have no reason to fear honest science.

 

[niceatheist]

Suppose after all the forensics are done on the bullet and on the gun, the lab report is conclusive that there is no chance at all that bullet in the man’s body could possibly have come from the gun and the man with the gun still insists, “God did it.”

Let us suppose that all the forensics point to the man being the shooter. Would you accept his claim that “God did it”?

 

[HarryStotle]

And frankly, I would think the fine tuning argument would cause as many, if not more problems for theists than for atheists, since now it raises the specter of God being limited in His actions, that only certain kinds of universes are capable of supporting complex types of matter like living organisms.

Yeah, this is a “good” argument regarding the raising of specters, I suppose.

About as “good” as someone raising the specter of me being a “picky eater” merely because at the moment they are watching me eat a cheese pizza. That would say more about their proclivity to make hasty judgements than it does about my eating habits (or about God’s creative abilities.)

The fact that we currently reside in a particular kind of universe says nothing about what God could or could not do beyond our universe. You need to curb your proclivity for being so anthropocentric and parochial in your thinking.

 

[HarryStotle]

Again, “all the forensics” do not point to a Godless or unguided universe, so your analogy simply fails.

More like the forensics have a long way to go before anything conclusive can be determined.

 

[fisherman_carl]

And frankly, I would think the fine tuning argument would cause as many, if not more problems for theists than for atheists, since now it raises the specter of God being limited in His actions, that only certain kinds of universes are capable of supporting complex types of matter like living organisms.

Not really. Fine tuning would not limit God as he is the one that created the limits. Fine tuning would only be a problem if God is out of the picture. It is the reason for the multiverse theory to try to explain fine tuning. But, even the multiverse turns out to need just as much fine tuning. So it can not be the ultimate explanation for the universe it tries to be. Ultimately, at some point all physical explanations break down for the universe or multiverse and a transcendent explanation is necessary.

 

[HarryStotle]

The basic problem with any probability argument is that we have a sample size of precisely one at this point; whether that be a planet with life, or the Universe itself. You simply cannot make grand statistical proclamations based upon one data point.

Except sample size has nothing to do with probability in the sense required by the fining tuning argument.

I don’t need to roll a six sided die a sufficient number of times to get a “sample size” in order to determine that a 3 will come up 1/6 of the time overall. The probability is built into the shape of the die and how it is thrown.

Similarly, there are at least 34 fine tuning parameters or “constants” (see below) which were set where they were, all at once, in an instant shortly after the Big Bang. Each of these parameters could have been set anywhere along a virtually infinite range. And a very minute change in any one of them would drastically change the nature of the universe. Therefore, the fact that the universe is the way it is depends completely on the infinitely improbable tuning of each of these parameters to all of the others. You can believe in an infinitely improbable universe, or that Someone was “monkeying” with the physics intentionally. Those are your two options. We don’t need more than one universe to draw that conclusion.

This was, by the way, the reason the multiverse was hypothesized: to make sense of the infinite improbabilities involved by speculating that an infinite number of universes must, therefore, be spawned by this hypothetical multiverse. No one speaks of sample sizes with regard to the fine tuning argument.

strong nuclear force constant
weak nuclear force constant
electromagnetic force constant
ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
ratio of electron to proton mass
ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
expansion rate of the universe
entropy level of the universe
mass density of the universe
velocity of light
age of the universe
initial uniformity of radiation
average distance between galaxies
density of galaxy cluster
average distance between stars
fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines)
decay rate of protons
12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
ground state energy level for 4He
decay rate of 8Be
ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
polarity of the water molecule
runaway freeze-up would result
supernovae eruptions
white dwarf binaries
ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
number of effective dimensions in the early universe
number of effective dimensions in the present universe
mass of the neutrino
big bang ripples
size of the relativistic dilation factor
uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
cosmological constant
Source: The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning

 

[rossum]

I don’t need to roll a six sided die a sufficient number of times to get a “sample size” in order to determine that a 3 will come up 1/6 of the time overall. The probability is built into the shape of the die and how it is thrown.

You are assuming that the die is not loaded. To assure yourself that it is a fair die, then you do have to roll it 10,000 times and look at the results.

rossum

 

[HarryStotle]

There are other ways to determine if a die is loaded. It is not necessary to do trials if the die is built to specifications AND the universe is built to VERY EXACTING specifications – at least 30 of them – and its had 13.8 billion years of “rolling itself out,” so to speak. We have the specs pretty much in hand and those specs tell us the die has been built to infinitely improbable specs or has been infinitely “loaded,” if you like.

The universe has rolled itself out in such a way as to baffle cosmologists regarding what they know to be true about it. An imperfect analogy would be like having a die that always garners the order 123456123456123456123456 and picks up on the number it left off on. And now we understand the structure of the die and what makes it output the numbers it does. THAT structure and those specifications didn’t happen by chance. At that point, you have to think the die IS LOADED and inexplicably, even eerily, so. It wasn’t just produced in an ordinary dice factory to garner random results. A super genius must have monkeyed with it.

Why do you think the multiverse was proposed to begin with?

 

[Aloysium]

No one would doubt the key feature of the living body has to do with a biochemical structure and physiology. The question one should pose oneself is whether the known fundamental processes of matter are sufficient to explain how matter organizes itself into living forms. Clearly, they are insufficient to explain what life is in itself, which includes the oneness we experience in being ourselves within the world.

Vishnu does not nudge anything. He represents transcendent consciousness, within everything, “dreaming” it into existence. Our imaginations will fall short in the endeavour but consider bringing particles into existence and swirling them about into a variety of patterns. They combine into increasingly complex patterns which suddenly are given a life, a being of their own. We may imagine ourselves as being each one, while remaining ourselves. They/we swim about in the water ingesting, as they/we bump (our surface connecting us to the world, shining in light with each touch) into the glowing forms floating about them/us, transforming them/ourselves into themselves/ourselves. One separates in two, life (we/this “I”) ever growing in number. I get Vishnu, but how would he nudge; he moves what he creates as the Supreme Identity who transcendent, is within everything. Christians elaborate on what is ultimate Divine reality, revealed to us in Jesus Christ.

As to Zeus, we should review a bit about the mythology and try to get a sense of the reality to which those stories relate. In the beginning there was Chaos, from which came forth the primordial gods including Gaia, the earth who alone gave birth to Uranus, the sky. Together they gave birth to the Titans, among them Cronus (also known as Chronus - time) and Rhea (another female earth symbol). Cronus was jealous of his father, overthrew and castrated him. This act led to a curse that he would be destroyed by one of his children, so time swallowed what it brought into the world. Rhea wasn’t happy with this so when Zeus was born, she fed Cronus a stone wrapped in linens. Zeus grew up and made Cronus throw up his brothers and sisters - the other gods, and after that he castrated him too. So Zeus became the head god. What we have here I see as most closely personifying the secularized vision of reality that passes itself of as science today. That somehow order came to be from chaos, a randomness believed to be at the foundations of everything. The world is a brutal senseless place ruled by passions, pride, power, pleasure, and possessions. In Oedipal fashion, the fathers are overthrown, and the son, ultimately mankind, takes his place. No thunderbolt brought about life. It is a myth, now made respectable given the name of science. The fact is that creation cannot create; it is irrational to suppose that what does not exist can bring itself into existence. And, whatever chaos there is requires an external hand to bring it to order.

More to say but the train’s gotten into the station.

 

[Aloysium]

Neither of those processes were involved in abiogenesis – the origin of life. Both only get going after the initial origin of life. Abiogenesis is much more about chemistry.

Science says nothing about the involvement of gods in the origin of material life. Did Vishnu quietly nudge a few amino acid molecules together? Science cannot tell you. Did Zeus send a lightning bolt at just the right moment? Science cannot tell you.

If God created everything, then God created mutation and natural selection. If God is omniscient they He was fully aware of the impact of mutation and natural selection on both animals and humans.

You are ignoring Genesis 1:20 which has fish and birds arising from the waters, not from the earth. That gives at least two separate origins for animal life, not one. The post-Adam animals in Genesis 2:19 appear to be yet a third origin, formed after the pre-Adam animals from Genesis 1:24.

Erm… Didn’t you just say above “each a separate creation moulded as it would appear today” (emphasis added). I am not following you here. Have organisms changed since they first appeared or not?

rossum

Following up on what is a very lengthy response. Walls of words are seldom read, but at least I get something out of bringing together what can be a chaos of poorly connected ideas. They don’t connect themselves; it takes a certain amount of effort and vision.

Mutations are the product of noise in the system, the result of the myriad internal and external processes which come together to form an event, which usually goes as intended. God does not so much create “mutations” as He could and would transform specific natural events that He brings into existence, if and when it suits His purposes.

Natural selection is not a thing. It is the reality of any organism’s existence as both an individual being (a particle) and a part of its environment (a wave). That’s how God brings all that is, into existence, then, now and later.

God is one with all creation, all time and all space, as its Creator, Father actually. So He knows what happens as He meets us in our present. It is incorrect to say “He was”, as if He is finite as we are, we who are becoming ourselves in time. Yes, He is aware of the impact of sin, which is why Peter said (1:18-20):

For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or spot. He was known before the foundation of the world, but was revealed in the last times for your sake.

It’s been said that atheists are fundamentalists. I take it that some Buddhists are likewise. It has to do with how we understand things I suppose. I don’t share your quandary about Genesis.

I am also confused about your last point.

Having already written too many, and just as lucky to make the point, here’s the equivalent of two thousand words.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Aloysium]

Why do you think the multiverse was proposed to begin with?

Because something outside this universe had to bring it into existence. Materialists propose the existence of a greater physical universe, encompassing this one, which just puts off the question as to a primary cause. But seeing there is no evidence for its existence, why not stipulate that it is eternal, with no beginning. Ultimately, if pursued in good faith, and obviously if at all possible, it would be found to have all the characteristics of God, transcending the physical and ultimately loving in nature.

 

[HarryStotle]

Are you suggesting human beings are the result of “natural processes”?

Genesis does say Adam was formed or shaped from the earth.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

And frankly, I would think the fine tuning argument would cause as many, if not more problems for theists than for atheists, since now it raises the specter of God being limited in His actions, that only certain kinds of universes are capable of supporting complex types of matter like living organisms.

Not really. Fine tuning would not limit God as he is the one that created the limits. Fine tuning would only be a problem if God is out of the picture. It is the reason for the multiverse theory to try to explain fine tuning. But, even the multiverse turns out to need just as much fine tuning. So it can not be the ultimate explanation for the universe it tries to be. Ultimately, at some point all physical explanations break down for the universe or multiverse and a transcendent explanation is necessary.

If God can create any kind of universe and still have life in it, then the fine tuning argument simply ceases to be an argument in favor of a theistic explanation of the origins of the Universe.

And your last sentence looks suspiciously like a “God of the gaps” argument.

 

[niceatheist]

HarryStotle:

Why do you think the multiverse was proposed to begin with?

Because something outside this universe had to bring it into existence. Materialists propose the existence of a greater physical universe, encompassing this one, which just puts off the question as to a primary cause. But seeing there is no evidence for its existence, why not stipulate that it is eternal, with no beginning. Ultimately, if pursued in good faith, and obviously if at all possible, it would be found to have all the characteristics of God, transcending the physical and ultimately loving in nature.

Uh no. The multiverse is a product of certain solutions to string theory. And, whatever you may think of “materialists”, the majority of physicists currently view it as little more than interesting abstraction, seeing as how even the more mundane predictions of string theory are a very long ways from being tested.

I think you’re being a little unfair in claiming this is all some sort of materialist plot. In general, physicists and cosmologists, even religious ones, are only going to be working with materialistic explanations when they are doing science, because, well, that’s what science does. It’s not in the business of proving anyone’s deity real or unreal.

 

[niceatheist]

Again, “all the forensics” do not point to a Godless or unguided universe, so your analogy simply fails.

More like the forensics have a long way to go before anything conclusive can be determined.

You seem to be willfully missing the point. This isn’t an analogy. A man is standing there with a smoking gun, a hole in a victim’s chest, and the man is claiming “God killed that guy”. Now we both know that no one is going to believe the guy, because one fo the principles of science, if not one of its chief governing principles, is parsimony. The simplest and most straightforward explanation that invokes the least number of entities generally tends to be the one we accept without further evidence to demonstrate otherwise.

Apply parsimony, or Occam’s Razor if you will, when the man claims God put a hole in the victim’s chest, we see the insertion of God as non-parsimonious. The much simpler explanation is that the man with the gun shot the victim. Now that’s not to say he could be right. After all, God is omnipotent, and most certainly could manufacture with the snap of His proverbial fingers a gun with powder burns on the man’s hand, a bullet hole in the victim’s chest, and the accused is himself a victim of Divine Intervention. No court would buy it, of course, but there’s absolutely no test you could apply that would prove him wrong.

This is precisely how science works. Since invoking God can explain all possible observations, it thus can explain nothing. Saying “God made the Big Bang” explains nothing about the Big Bang. It’s a claim that, even if true, could explain an infinitely large number of other counter predictions. It may be satisfying from a theological or philosophical point of view, but empirically, it is pretty much worthless.

 

[HarryStotle]

Actually, I am trying to be parsimonious.

You brought up the man with the gun as an analogue to “God did it,” now you claim it isn’t analogous. Okay.

In order for parsimony to work regarding explanations you have to have two equally sufficient explanations, and opt for the simpler.

The man with the gun sufficiently explains the bullet in the victim. Evolution does not sufficiently explain life on earth and the Big Bang does not sufficiently explain itself. Ergo there is no parsimony that can be applied with regard to evolution or Big Bang cosmology. What we have in both cases are insufficient explanations, which is why the man with the gun example is irrelevant.

There is no equivalence to be made, ergo parsimony with regard to dismissing God is not relevant.

 

[niceatheist]

If I say “Thor causes lightning”, you can retort that no, lightning is a product of natural build up of static electricity, but you’re never going to be able prove that every lightning bolt was natural in origin, because, after all, Thor could be responsible for some or all of lightning bolts, and being a god, he can make it look like a normal, natural event. That’s where the parsimony comes in. You’re not going to be able to disprove Thor did it, but logic would indicate that involving Thor as part of the explanation creates a fundamentally unfalsifiable assertion, not to mention violating Occam’s Razor by inserting an extra entity.

Strictly speaking, evolution explains how life evolved from a Common Ancestor, and doesn’t have anything directly to say about how that Common Ancestor came into existence. Modern evolutionary theory is a bit more complex on that point than Darwin was, because molecular analysis suggests there wasn’t one Common Ancestor, but rather that the bottom of the Tree of Life is more of a tangle, since early organisms, much like some modern prokaryotes and even other domains of life appeared pretty adept at swapping genetic information.

So evolution certainly can explain how you get from these populations of early cells to all the life we see today. That being said, I’d agree I’m being a bit pedantic if I try to create a wall between abiogenesis and evolution, as modern theory suggests that there was no sharp dividing line between “non-living organic molecules” and “living organic molecules.” And yes, abiogenesis research has a great many problems still to solve, but it’s actually a great deal further along than some here care to accept. Above I’ve given links to a series of lectures by a researcher in this field, Jack Szostak from Harvard Medical School, which shows how far the research has come, and where there are still problems.

The difference between abiogenesis research and invoking God is that the former can be tested, and if found wanting, disposed of. Go with the latter, and well, all possible observations are explained, and thus the explanation lacks all utility. I realize this must be frustrating for some, but as much as science isn’t in the game of proving God doesn’t exist (as some atheists seem to think it does), neither is it in the game of proving God does exist. And maybe we never come up with a satisfactory explanation as how life first evolved, but there’s another principle in science, and a hard one at times, sometimes you just have to accept uncertainty, that perhaps the answer won’t be found in a researcher’s lifetime, or indeed ever.

 

[HarryStotle]

Except that we aren’t speaking of the cause of individual lightning strikes (Thor-caused or otherwise.) We are speaking of the origin of that which accounts for all lightning strikes and all storms, and the entire climatology of the earth, and the electromagnetic workings of the universe, and the underlying causes of the elements within the universe, and all of matter, energy, and space-time. Where does Thor come into that?

Science has run out of answers and the probabilities of the underpinnings of the universe – the cosmological parameters – having simply arisen for no reason except as an infinitesimally small (read zero) chance result simply doesn’t cut it. There are no parsimonious options left except to desperately invoke the exact opposite of the parsimoniously simple: an infinitely complex multiverse that spews out universes like the ACME Bubblegum Company spits out chewing gum. Where is the parsimony in that? Seems like the Ockham Razor Company needs to declare bankruptcy.