Evolution a Farce?

[reggieM]

The whole problem with evolution per se is that it either has to be dependant upon a creationist aspect to the origination of it, or it can’t work.

One must use ones brain logically, take for example the sexual organs, unless they were pre-pogrammed in our original genetics back when we were slime then it is IMPOSSIBLE for a perfectly fully functioning fully formed sexual organ of both male and female species to occur out of randomness in the same place and time and for such organisms to meet together.

Agreed. Using logic, common sense, and observations of nature and the world around us, there’s no way that the evolutionary story (in the common Darwinian version) could be correct. Two recent “adjustments” to evolutionary theory (although they’ve also been around a long time under the radar) are “convergent evolution” and “self-organization”.

Convergent evolution means that the same preposterous “creation” of various complex and precise body parts just happened to evolve in the same way, completely independent of each other. The mathematical probability of such a thing evolving one time is absurd – the claim that it happened twice (and many times more) independently is beyond belief.

Self-organization is a concept that some evolutionists are turning to because the old idea of gradual change through adaptation simply doesn’t work to explain nature. So, this claim is that organisms just cluster together and create new complexity and function – simply because they do so.

Actually, self-organization might make more sense than the whole struggle for survival and natural selection fantasy. It’s saying that organisms just spontaneously create themselves (a lot like spontaneous generation from centuries ago).

We could try to imagine some kind of scientific law coming out of that. It would mean that nature simply creates complex, highly-functioning living beings through an accidental process.

Unfortunately, just observing nature one can see that this never happens. Evolutionists will howl with protest about how fruit-flies actually grew extra wings after being bombarded with radiation. Yes, useless and destructive mutations sometimes occur. Evolution proposes that these occurred with such a vast rapidity and with such amazing precision that the entire natural world can be explained by them – all plants, animals and human beings are the result of these “mutations”.

We see many creatures which have not shown any evolutionary-mutations in a period of 350 million years. They look the same today as they did in their eariest fossil forms.

So, yes – using logic, common sense and the sense of God’s creation that we find in the holy Psalms, we can see that something like the parallel, independent evolution of male and female sexuality is simply impossible to consider. “In the beginning, God made them male and female.” (Mark 10:6) As I see it, the Holy Scripture is much easier to believe than is the notion than an ape gave birth to a human being.

 

[reggieM]

I honestly don’t understand how this topic keeps getting brought up … I can’t decide which one is more foolish. So here are some things for both to chew on.

Darwin was a faithful Christian.

I think one of the reasons this topic keeps getting brought up is that some false propaganda from the pro-Darwin camp keeps getting posted and needs correction. For example, the notion that Darwin was a “faithful Christian” is contradicted by his own statement describing himself as an “agnostic”. So not only not a “faithful Christian” but he didn’t even fully believe that God exists at all. Perhaps these quotes from Darwin will help your understanding:

Thanks to Wolseley for this post …

*“I had gradually come by this time, * to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian.”
(Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, pg 277)

"I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.”(Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, pg 278)

**“I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age.” **
(Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, Michael Joseph, London, 1991, p. 658)

“I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”(Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, Chatto and Windus, London, 1959, pp. 10, 318)

“Formerly I was led… to the firm conviction of the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, ‘it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion, which fill and elevate the mind.’ I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body. But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind.”(Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, pg 281)

“I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.”(Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, pg 278)

Much of what was released in Darwin’s autobiography was “cleaned up” and G-rated for public consumption; Ian Taylor, in his book In the Minds of Men (TFE Publishing, Toronto, 1984), informs us that many of Darwin’s views on the Bible and Christianity “were deleted by his son, Francis, at the insistence of his widow, Emma, in the version published after his death, as were his views on the Old Testament, namely, what he called, ‘its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc. etc.’…the uncensored version of the autobiography, published by Charles’s granddaughter, Lady Nora Barlow, in 1958, contained some 6,000 words expunged by Francis and Emma, much of which related to Charles’s irreligious nature, and which ‘might embarrass the Darwin name’.”**

 

[The_Catholic]

Agreed. Using logic, common sense, and observations of nature and the world around us, there’s no way that the evolutionary story (in the common Darwinian version) could be correct. Two recent “adjustments” to evolutionary theory (although they’ve also been around a long time under the radar) are “convergent evolution” and “self-organization”.

Convergent evolution means that the same preposterous “creation” of various complex and precise body parts just happened to evolve in the same way, completely independent of each other. The mathematical probability of such a thing evolving one time is absurd – the claim that it happened twice (and many times more) independently is beyond belief.

Self-organization is a concept that some evolutionists are turning to because the old idea of gradual change through adaptation simply doesn’t work to explain nature. So, this claim is that organisms just cluster together and create new complexity and function – simply because they do so.

Actually, self-organization might make more sense than the whole struggle for survival and natural selection fantasy. It’s saying that organisms just spontaneously create themselves (a lot like spontaneous generation from centuries ago).

We could try to imagine some kind of scientific law coming out of that. It would mean that nature simply creates complex, highly-functioning living beings through an accidental process.

Unfortunately, just observing nature one can see that this never happens. Evolutionists will howl with protest about how fruit-flies actually grew extra wings after being bombarded with radiation. Yes, useless and destructive mutations sometimes occur. Evolution proposes that these occurred with such a vast rapidity and with such amazing precision that the entire natural world can be explained by them – all plants, animals and human beings are the result of these “mutations”.

We see many creatures which have not shown any evolutionary-mutations in a period of 350 million years. They look the same today as they did in their eariest fossil forms.

So, yes – using logic, common sense and the sense of God’s creation that we find in the holy Psalms, we can see that something like the parallel, independent evolution of male and female sexuality is simply impossible to consider. “In the beginning, God made them male and female.” (Mark 10:6) As I see it, the Holy Scripture is much easier to believe than is the notion than an ape gave birth to a human being.

Glad to run into you again brother

But seriously, you need to read some professional science books Especially regarding your second to last paragraph. And today, scientists have witnessed NUMEROUS mutations in experiments. I can write them out for you if you’d like. The reason why these experiments are not excitedly spread throughout the media is because professional scientists already know evolution to be fact, therefore the news doesn’t get so big. But creatures can be shown to mutate, and mutate for the better.

So it’s easier to believe that we came from simple dust, rather than from ape-like creatures?

 

[The_Catholic]

I think one of the reasons this topic keeps getting brought up is that some false propaganda from the pro-Darwin camp keeps getting posted and needs correction. For example, the notion that Darwin was a “faithful Christian” is contradicted by his own statement describing himself as an “agnostic”. So not only not a “faithful Christian” but he didn’t even fully believe that God exists at all. Perhaps these quotes from Darwin will help your understanding:

Thanks to Wolseley for this post …

“I had gradually come by this time, * to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian.”*
(Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, pg 277)

"I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.”(Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, pg 278)

**“I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age.” **
(Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, Michael Joseph, London, 1991, p. 658)

“I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”(Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, Chatto and Windus, London, 1959, pp. 10, 318)

“Formerly I was led… to the firm conviction of the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, ‘it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion, which fill and elevate the mind.’ I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body. But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind.”(Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, pg 281)

“I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.”(Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, pg 278)

Much of what was released in Darwin’s autobiography was “cleaned up” and G-rated for public consumption; Ian Taylor, in his book In the Minds of Men (TFE Publishing, Toronto, 1984), informs us that many of Darwin’s views on the Bible and Christianity “were deleted by his son, Francis, at the insistence of his widow, Emma, in the version published after his death, as were his views on the Old Testament, namely, what he called, ‘its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc. etc.’…the uncensored version of the autobiography, published by Charles’s granddaughter, Lady Nora Barlow, in 1958, contained some 6,000 words expunged by Francis and Emma, much of which related to Charles’s irreligious nature, and which ‘might embarrass the Darwin name’.”

LOL. What do you have special quotes for certain forums? This is the same exact quote you put in my thread hehe.

Poor Darwin, just a scientist. I bet if he would’ve remained Christian, and said evolution was God’s process, there would be no problem. But because he fell away, now evolution MUST be false. Go figure

 

[reggieM]

LOL. What do you have special quotes for certain forums? This is the same exact quote you put in my thread hehe.

Poor Darwin, just a scientist. I bet if he would’ve remained Christian, and said evolution was God’s process, there would be no problem. But because he fell away, now evolution MUST be false. Go figure

Not everybody read what I posted on the other thread, so I’m sorry for the repeated information. Eventually, I will collect all of the refutations of pro-Darwinist ideas that I’ve collected and post them somewhere. There are various points that come up all the time.

 

[redneck22]

You are confusing evolution with the origin of life. Two different things.

It’s very important for naturalistic evolutionists to seperate origin of life from evolution and make them two “realms” of science. However in doing this they make **Evolution, a theory with no beginning.**Where does evolution start and abiogenesis stop?

 

[buffalo]

Not sure what your point is in relation to what I said.
Are you denying the Church allows us to accept evolution?

Is it not obvious? We need to distinguish between evolution and the origins of man.

The points I posted are Dogma.

Please share with me how evolution deals with them?

 

[Orogeny]

It’s very important for naturalistic evolutionists to seperate origin of life from evolution and make them two “realms” of science. However in doing this they make **Evolution, a theory with no beginning.**Where does evolution start and abiogenesis stop?

Evolution starts once the first life form exists. Can’t evolve something that doesn’t exist. So, you are incorrect. Evolution has a beginning.

Peace

Tim

 

[cyberjacques]

I was unaware that Darwin lost his faith later in life. That’s too bad. But from his comments on the Bible, it seems that his loss of faith was due to a misunderstanding of his religion, not some higher truth he discovered through the scientific method. In the quotes posted there is no mention of some scientific reason for his falling away. So I think the argument still stands, since his original observations and conclusions were made with the mindset of a faithful Christian. And I think The Catholic is probably right, if he hadn’t fallen away, it would have been much harder for others to hijack his ideas as atheist ammunition.

 

[PhilVaz]

cyber << I was unaware that Darwin lost his faith later in life. That’s too bad. >>

Darwin was definitely not an orthodox Christian when he died. The facts are

(1) he uses the word “Creator” seven times in Origin of Species
(2) he uses the word “creation” dozens of times in Origin of Species
(3) his loss of Christian faith later in life is due to the problem of evil (the death of his daughter), not to science per se
(4) scientists, even Christian ones, knew the earth was old at least 100 years before Origin of Species was published, and they re-interpreted the Bible accordingly (i.e. local flood for Noah, etc)
(5) there are thousands of professional reputable scientists today who incorporate evolution into their Christian faith, one such group is the evangelical American Scientific Affiliation and of course various Catholic members of the Pope-sponsored Pontifical Academy of Sciences, we also have statements and books from the Popes themselves affirming that evolution is true and backed up with lots of evidence.

Two books I need to finish on the whole history of this:

Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders by Livingstone (shorter book)
The Post-Darwinian Controversies by Moore (thick book covers 1870-1900)

I also need to get a complete biography of Charles Darwin to get to the bottom of this. With full quotes and all. A nice article is Charles Darwin and Intelligent Design, to balance some of the quotes above.

EDIT: Let’s not forgot what Cardinal Schonborn has already said about Darwin:

"With this ‘Origin of Species’], his major work, Darwin undoubtedly scored a brilliant coup, and it remains a great oeuvre [work] in the history of ideas. With an astounding gift for observation, enormous diligence, and mental prowess, he succeeded in producing one of that history’s most influential works. He could already see in advance that his research would create many areas of endeavor. Today one can truly say that the ‘evolution’ paradigm has become, so to speak, a ‘master key,’ extending itself within many fields of knowledge." (Cat Lec for 10/2/2005, re-translated for his book Chance or Purpose)

Sorry to disappoint all you Darwin haters.

Phil P

 

[The_Barbarian]

**Are you denying the Church allows us to accept evolution? **

Is it not obvious?

It is. The Pope himself said it is virtually certain.

We need to distinguish between evolution and the origins of man.

He said something about that, too:

While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.
Cardinal Ratzinger, Report of the International Theological Commission.

The points I posted are Dogma.

Please share with me how evolution deals with them?

That’s been done before. Suffice to say, the Pope sees no conflict.

 

[buffalo]

**Are you denying the Church allows us to accept evolution? **

It is. The Pope himself said it is virtually certain.

He said something about that, too:

While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.
Cardinal Ratzinger, Report of the International Theological Commission.

That’s been done before. Suffice to say, the Pope sees no conflict.

Gee - you sound like a talking points politician. Did you not read the posts I quoted made by the Pope? Or are you just ignoring it?

 

[The_Barbarian]

It’s very important for naturalistic evolutionists to seperate origin of life from evolution and make them two “realms” of science. However in doing this they make Evolution, a theory with no beginning.Where does evolution start and abiogenesis stop?

One might as well assail chemistry for not dealing with the origin of atoms.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Gee - you sound like a talking points politician.

You’re displeased with the Pope’s teaching on the issue, so you’ve disparaged it as “talking points.”

Did you not read the posts I quoted made by the Pope?

Yes. And not surprisingly, neither of his statements contradict the other. It’s just that one of them doesn’t threaten your personal doctrines, and the other does.

 

[reggieM]

Darwin was definitely not an orthodox Christian when he died.

He referred to himself as an agnostic – in other words he did not believe that God exists. As stated, he lost faith in Christ by the age of 40 – ten years before Origin of the Species was published.

Yes, you probably should read the texts of his letters since you’re not doing a very good job in trying to whitewash these facts. The Darwinian industry has been helping you a lot though – covering up these uncomfortable issues around your hero.

As for how Darwin’s unbelief influenced his theory – the bias is obvious.

What Darwin wanted was Design without suffering, teleology without agony, purpose without pain.

…Imbedded in this refusal to follow Gray is the question of theodicy to which I referred earlier. How could an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God set up a process that led to “injurious deviations of structure”? How could such a Being design a struggle for existence, a survival of the fittest-- war for all and death for some? For Darwin, a doctrine of design that included evil and suffering was not worth embracing.
asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Miles.html

Darwin’s theory was created to try to remove God from His creation.

Darwin also introduced the idea of randomness and the non-necessity of assuming any divine overseeing Creator as the driving force behind the variety of types in the natural world.
public.coe.edu/department…arwin_bio.html

Rather, Darwin couldn’t conceive of how God, as then currently understood within the Christian church, and with which Darwin would have had some familiarity, could be the agent responsible for creating life as Darwin obeserved it to be. For Darwin, there were just too many “un God like” behaviors and systems in biology for him to accept that God (again, as understood within a particular Christian theology) would have had anything to do with the messiness of biological life as we actuallly observe it.
telicthoughts.com/both-sides-of-the-mouth/

 

[Dale_M]

Why don’t we see evolution occuring today, in the present?

We do. Mutations occur all the time, but the effects of natural selection occurs over thousands of generations so its not like we can just sit on the corner and watch. The sickle trait that some persons with west African ancestry have is thought to be an example of selection since it provides protection against malaria. Even though sickle cell disease is fatal, those who simply have the trait may have been favorably selected since malaria was less likely to kill them.

Antibiotic resistant bacteria would also be an example of evolution.

It’s a theory. It’s a well-supported theory, with a lot of evidence to back it up, but is not proven as fact. If it were fact, it would be called a scientific law.

I don’t think so. Facts are necessarily past tense - they are observed phenomena. If you stick your hand into a fire and your hand gets burned, your burnt hand is a fact. A theory is a prediction of future facts. After you burn your hand and after you have more experience with fire and hear about other people’s experience with fire, you generalize from those facts and form a theory: sticking your hand in a fire will burn your hand. But this is a theory, not a fact.

A scientific law is just a theory which isn’t questioned. It is still a prediction of future facts and not a fact in itself.

 

[Dale_M]

There are intersects that evolution has to explain.

1. Adam and Eve as our first parents.
2. Eve coming from Adam
3. Bodily immortality
4. preternatural gifts
5. infused knowledge
6. Body and soul created together

Hi Buffalo, I don’t understand all of your theological objections and would appreciate it if you would explain them.

1. Adam could easily have been our first parent since God gave him a human soul when the hominid line had evolved to the point that God wanted.
2. This is a stumper. I don’t know how to explain Eve coming from Adam in evolutionary terms.
3. There is no reason why God couldn’t have made Adam and Eve immortal when he gave them human souls.
4. Could you explain what are preternatural gifts?
5. Could you explain what is infused knowledge?
6. Again, there is no reason God couldn’t have created Adam with a human soul even though his mother did not have a human soul. After all Mary was born without the stain of original sin on her soul, even though her parents suffered from original sin.

 

[edwest2]

You’re displeased with the Pope’s teaching on the issue, so you’ve disparaged it as “talking points.”

Yes. And not surprisingly, neither of his statements contradict the other. It’s just that one of them doesn’t threaten your personal doctrines, and the other does.

To The Barbarian -

Here is the truth. Science is only a fragment.

bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

Pope Benedict XVI

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Hi Buffalo, I don’t understand all of your theological objections and would appreciate it if you would explain them.

1. Adam could easily have been our first parent since God gave him a human soul when the hominid line had evolved to the point that God wanted.
2. This is a stumper. I don’t know how to explain Eve coming from Adam in evolutionary terms.
3. There is no reason why God couldn’t have made Adam and Eve immortal when he gave them human souls.
4. Could you explain what are preternatural gifts?
5. Could you explain what is infused knowledge?
6. Again, there is no reason God couldn’t have created Adam with a human soul even though his mother did not have a human soul. After all Mary was born without the stain of original sin on her soul, even though her parents suffered from original sin.

The hominid line and the God given soul would be two entities. Catholic teaching is that they are one, created together. Dualism is heresy.

1. point # 3’s objection is the same as above.
2. , 5 Preternatural gifts and infused knowledge

The solution is - God created Adam and Eve supernaturally, body and soul, and inserted them into the timeline wherever He wished regardless what may or may not been happening in the universe at the time.

 

[buffalo]

You’re displeased with the Pope’s teaching on the issue, so you’ve disparaged it as “talking points.”

Yes. And not surprisingly, neither of his statements contradict the other. It’s just that one of them doesn’t threaten your personal doctrines, and the other does.

Let’s try it one more time:

Hello - what does this mean?

Pope Benedict XVI

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. **Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.” [5]

**
What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. * The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence*, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. * Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love.* They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.