EVOLUTION: A Catholic Solution?

[hecd2]

You’re not a molecular biologist and therefore by your own standard, you’re “not qualified to judge”. Additionally, you lack competence in this field. You’ve published no peer reviewed papers on molecular biology either. You’re not a “competent authority” and your opinions can be regarded for what they are – spoutings of an unqualified observer.

Just so. Note that this qualifier has been on my website (where I do quite a bit of my spouting) since it was launched in 2003:

“I am a trained scientist, but obviously not trained or working in every scientific discipline. There is very little on this website which rests on my own authority. However, where I make claims or statements, they are backed up by references to the primary literature. Most creationist arguments can be refuted by any trained scientist who is prepared to undertake some literature research.”.

And that is also the case for what I write about science subjects on this forum.

However, I note that you still haven’t been able to produce, from the tens of thousands of working scientists, a single molecular biologist, comparative anatomist, physical anthropologist, palaeontologist or developmental biologist who concludes that humans and chimps do not share common descent. The scientific debate that you claim exists, is merely your delusion.

Again, we can notice the qualifer and manipulation of the point, just as you did with my statement that there are some scientists who disagree with the idea of common descent.

Here, you’ve narrowed the scope to “recent examples”.

That is so because we are talking about the way institutional science works today. What is relevant is the likelihood that someone regarded as a crank is ultimately vindicated in the context of the way science works now. Of course there are one or two examples from the whole of the last hundred years, but that is a tiny number given the vast number of kooks and crazy types who self-publish on the internet about ways in which the entire scientific community is wrong and they are right. Is it possible - yes, we have seen some examples - I volunteered two and someone else has given one (I notice that you haven’t given any). Is it likely - no, it is unlikely and rare. It’s just not the way science generally works

Kooks and fruicakes, and those who support them, argue that there is a rich history of people like them being vindicated, and if we look at the facts, it’s just not so. It’s a rare exception.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Science gets into trouble when it attempts to meddle in religious matters, as it lacks the deposit of the faith and the God-given competence to distinguish between the knowledge that is derived from man’s limited senses and the knowledge given to man by God.

That’s true, but science is competent to comment on claims by the religious, in sacred books or from religious leaders or lay people that intersect the naturally world and are testable (such as the existence of a global flood, or human descent from two individuals). Science is incompetent to discuss claims that lie outside the natural world, (but then I might argue that no-one is competent to determine such things).

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

“molecular evidence” does not preclude the work of God.

Perhaps not, but it precludes the possibility of a literal Adam and Eve.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

Would you like to give us some recent examples of “innovative scientists” now accepted who were once regarded as cranks or fruitcakes? In the whole of the 20th century, I am aware of Warren and Marshall, and possibly Wegener.

Well, there is Bretz.

That’s a good example that I was not aware of. Thanks.

And Dr. Halton Arp might be added to the list one day.

Well, he might, but he hasn’t yet, so he’s hardly an example. His work is getting less and less traction as time goes by, so it’s unlikely that he ever will.

And I think the Electric Universe guys are on to something.

Now you’re scraping the barrel. These guys *are *mostly fruitcakes, trying to sell their books. In any case, they are hardly an example, because they are very far from being vindicated.

But of course, ID’ers and creationists will never be acknowledged - without an act from God. Lookout!

Because YECers talk unmitigated garbage and IDers are doing politics not science.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[buffalo]

Just so. Note that this qualifier has been on my website (where I do quite a bit of my spouting) since it was launched in 2003:

“I am a trained scientist, but obviously not trained or working in every scientific discipline. There is very little on this website which rests on my own authority. However, where I make claims or statements, they are backed up by references to the primary literature. Most creationist arguments can be refuted by any trained scientist who is prepared to undertake some literature research.”.

And that is also the case for what I write about science subjects on this forum.

However, I note that you still haven’t been able to produce, from the tens of thousands of working scientists, a single molecular biologist, comparative anatomist, physical anthropologist, palaeontologist or developmental biologist who concludes that humans and chimps do not share common descent. The scientific debate that you claim exists, is merely your delusion.

That is so because we are talking about the way institutional science works today. What is relevant is the likelihood that someone regarded as a crank is ultimately vindicated in the context of the way science works now. Of course there are one or two examples from the whole of the last hundred years, but that is a tiny number given the vast number of kooks and crazy types who self-publish on the internet about ways in which the entire scientific community is wrong and they are right. Is it possible - yes, we have seen some examples - I volunteered two and someone else has given one (I notice that you haven’t given any). Is it likely - no, it is unlikely and rare. It’s just not the way science generally works

Kooks and fruicakes, and those who support them, argue that there is a rich history of people like them being vindicated, and if we look at the facts, it’s just not so. It’s a rare exception.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Two things that jump out of this post:

1. trained scientist - trained how and what to believe
2. institutional science - slow to change and accept dissent

 

[Orogeny]

Two things that jump out of this post:

1. trained scientist - trained how and what to believe
2. institutional science - slow to change and accept dissent

What do you suggest is the remedy to the problems that you find in that post?

Should we require all scientists to not be trained? I have had discussions with two individuals over the last week or so that insist that C14 dating is inaccurate and then demonstrate that they don’t know the difference betwenn C14 and other dating methods. Should I rely on their opinions? How about the people who insist that germs are the result, not the cause, of disease? Does training really disqualify one from being a scientist? Really?

Should we require institutional science to change anytime someone proposes anything rather than to require that person to show that his idea has merit? Should we reject our current understanding of plate tectonics because someone proposes that the arrangements of the continents is the result of global expansion?

I really would like to hear your proposed changes and how they can be implemented.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

What do you suggest is the remedy to the problems that you find in that post?

Should we require all scientists to not be trained? I have had discussions with two individuals over the last week or so that insist that C14 dating is inaccurate and then demonstrate that they don’t know the difference betwenn C14 and other dating methods. Should I rely on their opinions? How about the people who insist that germs are the result, not the cause, of disease? Does training really disqualify one from being a scientist? Really?

Should we require institutional science to change anytime someone proposes anything rather than to require that person to show that his idea has merit? Should we reject our current understanding of plate tectonics because someone proposes that the arrangements of the continents is the result of global expansion?

I really would like to hear your proposed changes and how they can be implemented.

Peace

Tim

Oh no - training is a good thing - unless…

The way I see it there are now two camps - I would like to see one camp.

 

[Orogeny]

Oh no - training is a good thing - unless…

Unless what?

The way I see it there are now two camps - I would like to see one camp.

What two camps and how would you change them?

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Unless what?What two camps and how would you change them?

Peace

Tim

unless they are trained not to look outside the tunnel.

How would I change it? Get rid of the bureaucracy who is in charge. Eliminate the philosophy from the science.

 

[Brucegpope]

Okay, this is all starting to wear me out. I’m going to bow out until April, if that’s okay with everyone, because there’s going to be a conference in Rome in March on the topic of evolution anyway, and I’d like to see what shakes out of that.

evolution-rome2009.net/

–Mike

 

[Orogeny]

unless they are trained not to look outside the tunnel.

I really don’t get this. I know of no scientific field that teaches that one should only look at the existing data and never challenge the status quo. Just the opposite is true.

How would I change it? Get rid of the bureaucracy who is in charge.

What bureaucracy? I don’t know of any ruling body in geology that tells us what we can study and what we can’t. Are there in any other fields that you know of?

Peace

Tim

 

[Brucegpope]

I would like to thank you Mike for leading me to this site. This is an issue I have struggled with and at long last there will be a conference of minds to re-visit this conundrum. I can’t wait to hear what comes of it! The great ontological argument: Throughout the chain of cause and effect, there must at the end of the argument be some uncaused cause - That is God.

Bruce

Okay, this is all starting to wear me out. I’m going to bow out until April, if that’s okay with everyone, because there’s going to be a conference in Rome in March on the topic of evolution anyway, and I’d like to see what shakes out of that.

evolution-rome2009.net/

–Mike

 

[buffalo]

I really don’t get this. I know of no scientific field that teaches that one should only look at the existing data and never challenge the status quo. Just the opposite is true.What bureaucracy? I don’t know of any ruling body in geology that tells us what we can study and what we can’t. Are there in any other fields that you know of?

Peace

Tim

Maybe I misunderstand the system. How do scientists get funding?

 

[Orogeny]

Maybe I misunderstand the system. How do scientists get funding?

A variety of sources. In geology, much of the funding comes from oil or mining companies. Some funding comes from the government and some comes from private organizations.

I assume you want to focus on government funding. Fine, but I would like you to tell me that the government (and therefore us) don’t benefit from any of the research that comes from that funding.

I’m sure our military would love for the government to stop funding scientific research.

Peace

Tim

 

[grannymh]

Perhaps not, but it precludes the possibility of a literal Adam and Eve.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Dear Alec,

You guys are talking too fast for me to keep up. But sometime later, I will be throwing my hat in the ring regarding Eve and Adam. Hopefully you won’t stomp too hard while I am wearing it.

Just remember I am old enough to have worn hats when they were somewhat outlandish
The media never had trouble finding me when I was doing the p.r. at an event.

Blessings,
granny

 

[buffalo]

A variety of sources. In geology, much of the funding comes from oil or mining companies. Some funding comes from the government and some comes from private organizations.

I assume you want to focus on government funding. Fine, but I would like you to tell me that the government (and therefore us) don’t benefit from any of the research that comes from that funding.

I’m sure our military would love for the government to stop funding scientific research.

Peace

Tim

Ok - now mining companies are interested in areas of research to profit them. They don’t care much about philosophy. Same with military and medicine too.

I would like to focus on the areas of paoleontology, cosmology, biology, etc… The areas of research that actually result in evolutionism. (the philosophy)

 

[edwest2]

That’s true, but science is competent to comment on claims by the religious, in sacred books or from religious leaders or lay people that intersect the naturally world and are testable (such as the existence of a global flood, or human descent from two individuals). Science is incompetent to discuss claims that lie outside the natural world, (but then I might argue that no-one is competent to determine such things).

Alec
evolutionpages.com

You are arguing for

A) Preemptive knowledge which is entirely against scientific progress. Dark matter and dark energy are just recent developments in studying the universe. You are claiming that enough data is in, no more is coming, and we can all safely conclude that X is true and a settled matter.

B) It is arrogant and condescending for anyone to come to a religious forum and denigrate beliefs handed down through generations that are supported by history and by examined miraculous events.

C) Science cannot comment on claims made by religion since they do involve miracles and literal acts of God. Science is incompetent to study those things, and it is only arrogance and the idolatry of the human mind that allows anyone to interpret religious events by purely natural means. It further goes against Catholic Church teaching that man can detect God in nature by use of human (i.e. non-religious) reason alone.

Your attempts to undermine the Bible and history by using scientific data that ignores the miraculous is neither scientific or productive. It amounts to closing an area of scientific study to further research and questions, a claim often leveled at the Church.

Your “concern” for getting your views out is highly suspect. What does it matter on an internet forum that some Catholics disagree with your findings? Will this stop science in its tracks? Of course not. I can only conclude that you are here to promote atheism.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Your “concern” for getting your views out is highly suspect. What does it matter on an internet forum that some Catholics disagree with your findings? Will this stop science in its tracks? Of course not. I can only conclude that you are here to promote atheism.

Peace,
Ed

or to attempt to justify his own atheism. Hmmm - if I can weaken the faith of Catholics and I must be right in my own beliefs.

 

[StAnastasia]

Perhaps not, but it precludes the possibility of a literal Adam and Eve.Alec
evolutionpages.com

It doesn’t preclude the possibility of Adam and Eve as a breeding population of hominids.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I do not start from this same assumption. Instead, I suggest that the human soul is as much a product of evolution as the human body is.

The Church acknowledges that our species could evolve by natural means. But it asserts that each of us gets an immortal soul directly from God.