Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[niceatheist]

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 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.

This seems like a rather big claim. Is there any reason at all that you can justify “science has run out of answers”? We’re already seeing hints from LHC for physics beyond the Standard Model, so really, I’d say we’re just entering a new phase.

I don’t mean to be accusatory, but it’s almost as if you want to believe these gaps will never be solved, and that seems confirmed by the derogatory nature of your final sentences. There’s something profoundly uncivil about mocking research in this way.

 

[HarryStotle]

I don’t mean to be accusatory, but it’s almost as if you want to believe these gaps will never be solved, …

Well, okay, and not to be “accusatory” but it’s almost as if you want to believe these gaps WILL ALWAYS be solved by science. I suppose that implies the universe must, therefore, be, at bottom, intelligible – i.e., intelligently designed – to its core and no inexplicable brute facts will remain when all is said and done.

Now would you care to show how your atheism reconciles itself with the ultimate intelligibility of the universe – I.e., that the reason the universe exists is compatible with the principle of sufficient reason without resorting to a Cause that explains its own necessary existence?

In other words, if the universe is, at bottom, ultimately intelligible (all knowledge gaps are filled), how can that be so absent a necessary Cause that accounts for and explains its own existence?

 

[Aloysium]

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.

It’s not accurate to restrict the concept of multiverses to merely certain solutions to string theory. It is pretty broad and the idea goes far beyond physics. I would agree with the majority who see it as nothing more than an abstraction. But it does provide an explanation, untestable as it is, as to how it is that the laws of physics could have come to be in a universe that has a beginning.

There is no materialist plot. If someone believes that the foundations of existence are of a material nature, that is what they will be looking for and all that they will see and understand. One has to consider what is beyond that.

But, you are imposing a restriction on science that all it may deal with is the material. Science in addition to the various kinds of physics and chemistries, includes statistics and mathematics, computer programming and information systems, behavioural and political sciences, astronomy, geography, geology, atmospheric sciences, anthropology, biology, applied and life sciences; there’s a very long list of disciplines that utilizes the scientific method under the general umbrella of the philosophy of science.

I am not talking about proving anyone’s diety is real but rather of having an understanding of what constitutes a human being when trying to determine who we are and where we come from. That image of a transformation of an ape into a man should be exposed for what it is - a myth that leads most people astray from the truth.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

I don’t mean to be accusatory, but it’s almost as if you want to believe these gaps will never be solved, …

Well, okay, and not to be “accusatory” but it’s almost as if you want to believe these gaps WILL ALWAYS be solved by science. I suppose that implies the universe must, therefore, be, at bottom, intelligible – i.e., intelligently designed – to its core and no inexplicable brute facts will remain when all is said and done.

I’m fully willing to admit there are problems we may never be able to probe. Part of science is accepting uncertainty.

Now would you care to show how your atheism reconciles itself with the ultimate intelligibility of the universe – I.e., that the reason the universe exists is compatible with the principle of sufficient reason without resorting to a Cause that explains its own necessary existence?

If there are aspects of the universe that we may never understand, then how does that make the universe ultimately “intelligible”. You seem to want your cake and eat it too, that there are gaps in knowledge that can only be filled by invoking God, and yet at the same time want to declare how we can understand the universe.

But really, we’re just pretty smart apes. It’s that simple.

In other words, if the universe is, at bottom, ultimately intelligible (all knowledge gaps are filled), how can that be so absent a necessary Cause that accounts for and explains its own existence?

Well, it can’t really. Nothing can falsify the claim “God is responsible.” I, as an atheist, obviously part ways with you philosophically on that, but from the point of view of science, nothing science can ever learn can discount God. But the caution to you is that you shouldn’t be using gaps in knowledge as places to park God, that a God of the gaps can only shrink, whereas if you’re willing to accept that faith is not a tool of gaining empirical knowledge, then you should have no problem with gaps in knowledge being filled.

I guess it really boils down to the kind of faith you have. If your faith is built upon having to have this glaring holes in knowledge as some sort of confirmation of the Creator, then I’d say you have a problem. For me, as a personal philosophical view of the Universe, I simply do not see the need for a Prime Mover. I concede I could be wrong, and I further concede that my view, while I believe it rational, is not in any way supported by science. I’m also willing to accept gaps in knowledge and not rush to fill them, which is why I remain rather skeptical of claims like brane theory, with its multiverse ramifications.

 

[Aloysium]

holes in knowledge as some sort of confirmation of the Creator,

It’s not the gaps but the fullness of being that is a confirmation of a Creator.
I’m going to leave it at that - the answer is within you, in your relationships with others.

 

[niceatheist]

But, you are imposing a restriction on science that all it may deal with is the material. Science in addition to the various kinds of physics and chemistries, includes statistics and mathematics, computer programming and information systems, behavioural and political sciences, astronomy, geography, geology, atmospheric sciences, anthropology, biology, applied and life sciences; there’s a very long list of disciplines that utilizes the scientific method under the general umbrella of the philosophy of science.

Science is, at its core, is an applied form of methodological naturalism. That’s how it works. It really can’t deal in metaphysical questions, though obviously findings of science can certainly raise such questions. But if it cannot ultimately be tested, at least at some point in the future, then a hypothesis may in fact not be science at all. For the physics mainstream, string theories have real problems as some of their predictions are indistinguishable from predictions from other theories (here’s where parsimony comes in to play), and others are a long way from being testable, or even cannot at the moment be seen as testable at all. I like to think of string theory as a very interesting mathematical model that may or may not have anything to do with reality.

The multiverse specifically comes out of brane theory extensions to string theory, and in particular string theorists attempts to explain why gravity is so much weaker than the other fundamental interactions (that’s physical forces for you old timers). The hypothesis that is the foundation of brane theory is that gravitons (a conjectured but as yet unobserved hypothetical particle that is a carrier for gravitational force) can easily “slip” out of our brane (roughly our universe) into neighboring branes, thus rendered gravity a lot weaker. With the notion of other “branes” comes the notion of a multiverse, filled with possibly an infinite number of alternative universes, potentially with different physical laws, though obviously the notion that gravitons could slip between universes would still suggest some overarching set of fundamental principles.

Again, it’s a lovely theory that some string theorists believe could explain the anthropomorphic principle, by simply making it go away. We just happen to be lucky to live in a universe that has the right set of fundamental constants to make complex structures like stars, planets, organic molecules, etc. possible. But there are an infinite number of other universes, some of which may be utterly sterile.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

After you’ve worked out the odds of all thirty being exactly so, you can start working on the odds of everything happening in just a particular way ever since the Big Bang that results in you specifically sitting where you are reading this.

If you start with any given position sand then work backwards to calculate the odds of it happening, you always get the same result.

 

[Bradskii]

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

But what would the universe look like if God didn’t exist. All the evidence points it to looking exactly like it does right now.

 

[niceatheist]

HarryStotle:

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.

After you’ve worked out the odds of all thirty being exactly so, you can start working on the odds of everything happening in just a particular way ever since the Big Bang that results in you specifically sitting where you are reading this.

If you start with any given position sand then work backwards to calculate the odds of it happening, you always get the same result.

You can’t calculate the odds on something that has a sample size of one. You can’t know whether any of the physical constants or interactions could have turned out multiple ways, or whether there are underlying physical laws that mean that certain things can only be one way.

While Quantum Mechanics creates a certain amount of “indeterminacy”, it is still possible that Universe, overall, may be deterministic, and thus that means the fundamental constants and the fundamental interactions turned out the way they did because that’s the only way they could turn out.

That’s always going to be the problem with the Anthropomorphic Principle. What exactly does it demonstrate. Obviously we live in a Universe where we can observe that the physical laws permit us to exist at all, but as a statistical statement it’s well nigh worthless. And as I say elsewhere, the Anthropomorphic Principle creates problems for Theists, because it suggests that God is limited in the kinds of universes He creates that will support life (and thus causes issues with what exactly is meant by omnipotence), or the opposite, if God could create any kind of universe and still create life that could live within it, at which point the Strong Anthropomorphic Principle, as a justification for needing a Prime Mover, is undermined.

 

[Bradskii]

You can’t calculate the odds on something that has a sample size of one.

I was playing poker with my son at a local pub a couple of years back. He was dealer and the flop and the turn were the four aces. The river was a king. Everyone was coming over and taking piccies of the cards. I mean, what were the odds! Well, they were very high indeed, but exactly the same as if he had dealt any other 5 cards.

The fine tuning argument is only relevant to those who believe that we are the cards that the universe was always going to deal.

 

[Rau]

But what would the universe look like if God didn’t exist. All the evidence points it to looking exactly like it does right now.

Why would (does) the universe exist at all??

 

[jcm2017]

If you assume that human beings are wonderfully and awesomely made it may lead to you inquire as to the meaning and significance of human existence.
Four aces flopping…that’s really cool and might interest you, but not so much as questions of meaning, being, identity, purpose.
Christianity values these more personal aspects of existence.

 

[jcm2017]

What you say has no meaning if you don’t believe in God.

 

[Glark]

Good Lord. That is absolutely hideous. So why am I laughing so much?! The barnacles are a nice touch. But someone needs to put that man back in the water. Now.

(It’s probably illegal to post something that repulsive.)

 

[jcm2017]

Glark: please answer a simple question:
Do you believe there is a dome in the sky separating “the waters”?

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

You can’t calculate the odds on something that has a sample size of one.

I was playing poker with my son at a local pub a couple of years back. He was dealer and the flop and the turn were the four aces. The river was a king. Everyone was coming over and taking piccies of the cards. I mean, what were the odds! Well, they were very high indeed, but exactly the same as if he had dealt any other 5 cards.

The fine tuning argument is only relevant to those who believe that we are the cards that the universe was always going to deal.

The fine tuning argument, as I say above, seems highly problematic, however. If God can create any kind of universe and still have life capable of asking the question, then the fine tuning argument is meaningless. If God isn’t free to make any kind of universe capable of supporting such life, then that certainly raises some questions about the nature of omnipotence.

It just strikes me as misguided to pin one’s faith on such an argument, seeing as we do not know enough about the nature of reality to even say whether the physical properties we’re claiming are fine tuned could have in fact turned out any other way (is the universe deterministic?). In other words, the fine tuning principle is really another variant on the God of the Gaps; we have a hole in our knowledge (are the physical laws we see inevitable, or are they potentially unconstrained at the first moments of creation and could turn out any number of ways).

Yes, I’m an atheist, so obviously my response to the argument is going to be different than a theist, but that we live in a universe capable of supporting beings like us is a pretty astounding thing, Prime Mover or no Prime Mover. Whether it was a matter of chance or design, or simply inevitable either way doesn’t really detract from the majesty of the universe.

 

[Glark]

No one is forcing you to argue about it. Scripture says not to argue.

How do reconcile the following Scripture with billions of years of evolution:

“But from the beginning of creation, God created them male and female” - Mark 10:6

This is worth arguing about, I think.

 

[niceatheist]

fisherman_carl:

No one is forcing you to argue about it. Scripture says not to argue.

How do reconcile the following Scripture with billions of years of evolution:

“But from the beginning of creation, God created them male and female” - Mark 10:6

This is worth arguing about, I think.

Except even in the account in Genesis 1 Adam and Eve were pretty much the last parts of Creation that were made, which suggests that the passage you quote is metaphorical or poetic. This is why literal readings of certain parts of the Bible ends you up in conundrums. If read literally, the passage in Mark literally conflicts with the order of creation set out in the first chapter of Genesis.

 

[Glark]

The Pope does not propose Genesis be read in the literal way you insist it must be read. So, it’s a choice between Glark and the Pope. That a tough one!

Is this the same Pope who says “God is not a magician”? Hmm, walking on water, turning water into wine, raising people from the dead, reading minds, foretelling the future, a virgin birth, Transubstantiation - these are not the work of a magician?

 

[niceatheist]

Rau:

The Pope does not propose Genesis be read in the literal way you insist it must be read. So, it’s a choice between Glark and the Pope. That a tough one!

Is this the same Pope who says “God is not a magician”? Hmm, walking on water, turning water into wine, raising people from the dead, reading minds, foretelling the future, a virgin birth, Transubstantiation - these are not the work of a magician?

I’m no Catholic, but I think the idea of calling miracles “magic tricks” would be a rather theologically suspect statement.