Evolution and Creation: What to Teach Students?

[SeekingCatholic]

Physics is measureable, testable and predictable. So is chemistry. So is electricity and electronics. So is navigation. So is aeronautics. These are sciences.

Evolution, something that nobody has ever seen, a theory that keeps changing. Evolution, one animal magically changing into another. And this is science?

This is intellectual dishonesty. (Edited). You have been informed about what the theory of evolution truly proposes and nevertheless choose to misrepresent it here anyway in a (Edited) straw-man version.

 

[Sideline]

Physics is measureable, testable and predictable. So is chemistry. So is electricity and electronics. So is navigation. So is aeronautics. These are sciences.

Evolution, something that nobody has ever seen, a theory that keeps changing. Evolution, one animal magically changing into another. And this is science?

1. Evolution is measurable, testable and predictable. That’s why we know it is true.
2. Evolution has nothing to do with magic. It has to do with mutation and changes in allele frequency, which has been observed.
3. Every scientific theory changes in light of new evidence. You don’t think our understanding of gravity has changed since the days of Isaac Newton?

 

[Chuck_H]

What should a Catholic biology teach in a Catholic high school about creation and evolution?

The following posts offer suggestions about how to handle teaching evolution with a Catholic slant. If you don’t believe in evolution then please do not read them.

That evolution has occurred is, in science terms, a moral certainty. That is to say, the hypotheses of Darwin, Gould and numerous other evolutionary scientists has withstood the “null hypothesis” a sufficient number of times to be accepted as a Theory.
Logically evolution provides a schema for life to conform to changing conditions in the environment and that schema results in organisms becoming different from progenitors based on the accumulation of new genes, new genetic combinations and new developmental strategies.
Excluding biblical literalists, evolutionists fall into two general categories; Theistic evolutionists and Atheistic evolutionists.

Theistic evolutionists split into intelligent design theorists and Darwinian evolutionists however they only disagree on the mode of change.
(continued)

 

[Chuck_H]

Paley and Behe as Intelligent design proposers rely on some intrusion into the biological process in an act of creation that introduces a new entity into the biological world. Their hypothesis of irreducible complexity has been shown to have fatal flaws by both Theistic and Atheistic scientists and their arguments do not stand when confronted with biological experimentation and experimental results.

Kenneth Miller ( a Catholic biologist) and Francis Collins (The mapping of the human genome) could ultimately be considered as promoting the ultimate intelligent design that finds its source at the beginning of creation and sees creation as a process that is still unfolding. This process is able to be experimented with and allows the revelation of the way the universe, the solar system and the biological life of this planet have evolved to what is now present and verifiable.

I offer two web sites for teachers and the curious to see the positions of both Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins.
millerandlevine.com/km/evol/
cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

While I do not claim any theological revelation, my sense is that creation involved the setting down of what I term God’s commandments to the cosmos in the form of the laws of physics which ultimate govern every thing biological. The induction of the physical laws into “light” by definition would lead to our existence.
It is with dry humor that I watch even Atheistic physicists grapple with the idea of multiple planes of existence required by string theory and the necessity of "believing these to exist even though they can never be tested by experiment.
(continued)

 

[Chuck_H]

Since the Theistic scientist is studying a process he/she is able to develop hypotheses and experiments that tell us more about our organic selves and their experimentation leads to progress in the ability of man to better control his temporal existence. This scientific process is best exemplified by Louie Pasteur’ s work with disproving spontaneous generation and the vaccine for rabies. It is notable that this consummate scientist prayed the rosary while going to and from his laboratory.

Atheistic Scientists all seem to share one common characteristic. They at one time worshiped very small gods who could be killed off at the slightest suggestion that God did no sit down on the riverbank and pull elephants and oak trees and man out of His hat.

(reference- J. B. Phillips Your God is too small

If you teach biology and evolution I recommend spending some time on this web site.

thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief/watch/

The reason why I recommend this site is because this is the opposition. When your students attend secular colleges it is likely that one of these people will give lectures just as Richard Dawkins just finished doing at the University of Wisconsin this last week. Neil deGrasse Tyson is one of the periodic hosts on programs such as Nova (PBS). Your students may even attend classes taught by some of these scientists since many of them are in current faculty positions at universities around the country.

My final advise is personal. This is taken out of context but I think this is applicable to this topic. Jesus said, “With God, all things are possible.” Now we know he was talking about getting into heaven but this was a basic truth that can comfortably leave the context and walk through biology, astronomy, chemistry and physics with equal validity.

It is possible to see the evolution of the cosmos, the evolution of the galaxy, the evolution of the solar system, the evolution of the planet and the evolution of life. In my mind this is a process that only God could think up.

Now your only challenge is get the lil-buggers to learn it!

 

[Chuck_H]

Good point. These evolution threads on CAF are marked by some defenders of evolution who are entirely uncritical of evolutionary theory and who are passionate in their defense of Charles Darwin himself. The arguments in defense of both are given with such dogmatic certainty that one must conclude that these evolutionary apologists cannot admit the tiniest flaw in either the theory or the man.

I find that, in itself, remarkable. Evolution is defended with what must be considered a religious fervor. The theory is indeed “heavily flawed”. To then see evolutionary-defenders act as if the theory was so air-tight that it’s impossible to consider any of the numerous criticisms raised against it as plausible, only indicates how extreme the Darwinian-defense really is.

Even in defending Catholicism, which is a body of truth on an infinitely higher level than Darwinism, apologists know that one should admit areas where the teaching is not clear or could, in fact, be reformed. I see the Darwinists, however, as incapable of having any critical distance on the theory. It’s something as personal as religion. Any criticisms of Darwinism are met with the kind of outrage and ridicule that is reserved for when someone insults your wife or family memeber.

It’s that kind of extreme partisanship that is remarkable, to me.

I can fully understand that attitude for atheists. After all, Darwinism is the foundation for their stance against God. It’s their armor against religion and spirituality, therefore, there can’t be any real compromise or admission of the flaws in evolutionary theory.

But what about Catholics who are as passionate about Darwin as their atheist counterparts are?

Again, I don’t know. It’s a very obvious mental attribute though and it should be obvious to anyone who has a healthy distance from Darwinian propaganda to see.

A clarification is needed here.

Darwinism includes only the basic principles of natural selection.
When a biologist defends Darwinism, it is like a physicist defending the basic principals of Einsteinian physics.
Many of Darwin’s hypothesis have undergone extensive change over the years.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

You’ve exposed what has been unsaid by the evolutionary-defenders. This, at least, exposes the lies and cover-ups from the Darwinists who claim that evolution has zero impact on Catholicism.

What evidence do you have that these are “lies and cover-ups from the Darwinists” rather than an honest opinion? Put up or shut up. I will bet you have no evidence but you are just shooting your mouth off. These are the kind of puerile tactics I have seen more than once from “anti-Darwinists”.

You claim (you’re new to the topic so you don’t know what has already been claimed ad nauseam) that evolution does cause a problem for Catholicism and it would be “nice” if it was proven to be false.

This directly contradicts the claims of Catholic-Darwinists who say that the theory regards a subject as neutral as plumbing.

So. Is it impossible for there to be such a thing as a difference of opinion?

Since you’re new to the thread, you’ve let a bit of honesty leak out. Your Darwinist counterparts have not been able to do that much. They absolutely refuse to accept that Darwinism proposes any problem at all.

Yes, that is zealotry and extremism. You’ve proven it here with your admission that it would be nice for our faith if Darwinism was false. But again, we’ve seen no support for what you said in hundreds of posts from Darwinists.

Again, where is the evidence they truly think Darwinism proposes a problem but are simply lying about it.

It would also be nice BTW for Catholicism if the Donation of Constantine and the False Decretals were genuine, and if geocentrism were true, if a global flood were true, if the universe were young (since that appears in the Roman Martyrology), and if there was evidence outside the Gospel that it was really a Roman custom to release a prisoner at Passover, and if there weren’t evidence showing a correlation of brain activity with every mental process - even those supposed to be conducted by an immaterial intellect after data has been collected from the senses. But these things aren’t so, and it does no good to pretend otherwise.

As I said – this should be blatantly obvious to anyone. You fell right into it yourself, but you blithely skip over why it would be “nice for Catholicism” if Darwinism was false.

Sure it would be “nice” for Catholicism. It would spare theologians and philosophers the trouble of having to answer some very difficult questions. Yet I, as a scientist, am not going to bastardize the evidence and tell them what they want to hear just to make their jobs easier. Your attitude is that of attacking the messenger.

You also seemed to disagree with my characterization of some Darwinists (all of them here) who cannot accept any flaws in the theory at all and who respond with outrage and ridicule to any criticisms of the same (even criticisms coming from the Holy See). But instead of pointing to the many instances where Darwinists were objectively critical of the theory, you start arguing about how Creationists are dogmatic.

That’s just silly. If they thought the theory was heavily flawed they wouldn’t be Darwinists in the first place! Why would you expect them to be critical of it? Yet they are not, and cannot be, dogmatic in the sense Creationists are.

OTOH, there some really ignorant “critiques” of evolution floating around which are PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times) which can be presented with a glib assurance on the 1001st time that this “proves” evolution to be a “hoax” and/or that “atheist scientists” are “hiding the evidence”. Ridicule is the appropriate response here, to ignorance being paraded as knowledge.

I’ll conclude that you agree with what I said but you think that the attitude of dogmatic-zealotry is fine for evolutionists because Creationists do it also.

Going along with this, you would need to admit (to be consistent) that Darwinists are no more objective than Creationists and any claims to “scientific neutrality” are just smoke-screens.

There ain’t no such thing as “scientific neutrality” strictly speaking; there are assumptions which need to be brought into the mix. This is OK, I claim, as long as is honest and open about what they are. One can’t even do Euclidean geometry without assumptions. And one can’t prove, strictly speaking, the inductive method (which science uses), to be valid. One can only get a a moral certainty (like we know the sun will rise tomorrow).

Again, I see that quite clearly in your own post – offered with emotion and fervor. You claim that this is defending the “Truth” as if evolutionary theory can be classified as a matter of “Truth” and not of speculation and guesswork which can (and does) change frequently.

The claim is that common descent (usually denoted the “fact” of evolution) can be proved to a moral certainty, using the methods and assumptions of science, while the exact way in which it happened (usually denoted the “method” of evolution), is still an open question.

 

[Chuck_H]

Then I’ll appreciate not being called a dogmatic zealot, thank you very much. Scientific theories by definition cannot be “dogma” - although they can be supported by such a weight of evidence as to make their truth a moral certainty. I would put common descent in this category - I especially find the DNA evidence persuasive beyond a reasonable doubt. I would not put “random” mutation plus natural selection as the mechanism responsible for all genetic diversity in this category, at least not yet, nor would I put gradualism in this category (as opposed to punctuated equilibrium or saltationism). If this gets me on the bad side of the “evolution-is-perfect” folks, so be it. I’m quite convinced I can defend all my points of view based on the evidence.

Hi seeker. Can’t stay out it can you Neither can I. Do me a favor and check out my three posts at the bottom of the the thread. I was assuming someone wanted to know how to handle teaching it as a catholic educator. constructive criticism would be welcome.

Chuck H

 

[reggieM]

What evidence do you have that these are “lies and cover-ups from the Darwinists” rather than an honest opinion?

The evidence is as I presented it already. You come along after hundreds of posts on other threads regarding evolution and you admit that “it would be nice for Catholicism if evolution is false”. With that statement, you provided evidence. None of the Darwinist-defenders have said such a thing in many posts. You, however, very naively just blurt it out. Clearly, you see an obvious conflict between evolution and Catholicism, as most rational people do. But this one simple point has not been admitted by the Darwinists here on CAF in the past few months at least (check the most recent threads on evolution).

Put up or shut up.

I wouldn’t call that a considerate way to express oneself – but I would also say that it’s not uncommon to see such things.

I will bet you have no evidence but you are just shooting your mouth off.

The challenge goes back to you. It should be quite easy to prove me wrong since I pointed to where you can find the evidence. Show me where the prominent Darwinists here (do you know who they are?) have said that it would be nicer for Catholicism if evolution is false.

Again, where is the evidence they truly think Darwinism proposes a problem but are simply lying about it.

The evidence is in the fact that you see a problem and mentioned it in the most off-hand manner. Of course, many critics of evolution see the same problem you mentioned.

Sure it would be “nice” for Catholicism. It would spare theologians and philosophers the trouble of having to answer some very difficult questions.

I’ll just say that your opinion here contradicts what we’ve heard from the Darwinian-corner for a while now. For them, evolution does not provide any difficulties for theology or philosophy – no more than plumbing does.

Your attitude is that of attacking the messenger.

I disagree. You incorrectly called my approach an “ad hominem” but I am arguing against the arguments and how they’re presented – and in fact, the content of the arguments (a lack of admission that Darwinism is problematical).

If they thought the theory was heavily flawed they wouldn’t be Darwinists in the first place!

I didn’t ask that they see the theory as heavily flawed, but to admit that there are at least some flaws.

Why would you expect them to be critical of it?

Because it is not an infallible teaching, nor is it in any way perfect. Supposedly, scientists are objective and unbiased enough to admit such a thing.

Yet they are not, and cannot be, dogmatic in the sense Creationists are.

One would hope that scientists would not be dogmatic the way people who are defending religious dogma are. In fact, they’re supposed to be neutral and objective and simply follow the evidence. Therefore, when I see scientists who are incapable of admitting that Darwinism has flaws and who react with emotion to criticisms of Charles Darwin himself, I question if there is enough objectivity present in them.

 

[The_Barbarian]

One of the odder things about creationists, is that they have the idea that scientists think “evolution is perfect” or that they are “zealots” for evolution.

No more than Newton thought “gravity is perfect”, or was a “zealot” for gravity.

I think it’s because they have such an emotional investment in creationism that they figure it’s that way with science, too.

 

[drpmjhess]

Sure it would be “nice” for Catholicism. It would spare theologians and philosophers the trouble of having to answer some very difficult questions. Yet I, as a scientist, am not going to bastardize the evidence and tell them what they want to hear just to make their jobs easier. Your attitude is that of attacking the messenger.

Seeking Catholic, I do understand the rhetorical nature of what you say, but the argument can be made – and has been by John Haught – that Darwinian thought is a gift to theology, in that it provides space for a more dynamic understanding of the universe within which the Christian story is worked out.

I do wonder, however – and here I’m speaking as a theologian, not a scientist, why it is that ID Creationists and Young Earth Creationists come complaining to this sort of forum (Catholic Answers) rather than taking their case directly to scientists. If ID were a real science – which I suppose it might be – I would think ID proponents would be knocking on the doors of laboratories, or, better yet, constructing laboratories and research programs of their own in which they to prove that Intelligent Design is a science strong enough to rival evolutionary biology.

Instead, what we see is tens of thousands of biologists quietly and industriously working in their labs, confirming ever more strongly the evolutionary theory, while ID theorists insistently deny that evolution is a fruitful hypothesis, eschew lab work for mathematical constructs about “inferences to best explanation,” and haunt fora such as this where they can complain about the evolutionist establishment not giving ID a fair shake. There appears to be somewhat of a disconnect here!

Of course, the truth always comes out, and if ID is valid science I imagine in twenty years we’ll know that. If so, I’ll expect to see international conferences on Intelligent Design biology, juried journals in numbers to rival those of mainstream biology, and endowed chairs in Intelligent Design at Stanford, Harvard, and Oxford. What do you and the other scientists on this forum think?

Petrus

 

[The_Barbarian]

I would think ID proponents would be knocking on the doors of laboratories, or, better yet, constructing laboratories and research programs of their own in which they to prove that Intelligent Design is a science strong enough to rival evolutionary biology.

They have tried that. It didn’t work out so well. Many scientists, myself included, were initially attracted to the idea, but when it became clear that it was a religious movement (and who was part of the leadership) they left.

I have an acquaintance who is doing what you suggest; there are some ID think tanks which have laboratories looking for something that might support ID.

So far, nothing. But some are trying.

 

[Camron]

…and if there weren’t evidence showing a correlation of brain activity with every mental process - even those supposed to be conducted by an immaterial intellect after data has been collected from the senses…

There was quite a bit in the list that I would question. But, since this thread is confined to the ideas relating to creation and evolution, I thought I would step in on this point and point into the direction of the God-breathed soul where it all began.

There isn’t evidence showing a correlation of brain activity with every mental process - especially some of those supposed to be conducted by an immaterial intellect after data has been collected from the senses.

Phantom limbs, for example, have a rational explanation via the neuroplasticity of the brain.

Other examples, however, such as people born blind “seeing things” during a NDE, do not have such an easy explanation (if one can call neuroplasticity something easy to understand).

There’s actually quite a bit of evidence, both hard evidence and anecdotal evidence, that the “mind” can (and does) work independently of the “brain”.

If you want to discuss this point further I would love to engage that discussion in another thread if you want to start one. I’d rather not participate in this thread that much if possible.

 

[abu_kamoon]

Evolution has always been promoted by the Nazis and the Communist governments. Belief and worship of God is an impediment to the total state.

Evolution is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Evolution’s purpose was to demonstrate that God was superfluous to the origin of life. “Science” has told us how it really happened.

There are many people today who want to have a foot in each camp. They claim to believe in God, but they want to believe in evolution, too. They don’t want to be viewed as unscientific, so they claim that God managed the evolutionary process, but for some unknown reason, He told us something else in the Bible.

I would like one of the “scientific” Christians to explain why the Bible has it so wrong. Don’t tell me that the Bible is not a book of science. Science books are not supposed to teach religion, and yet, they claim to be able to tell us what happened before there was anyone here to witness it.

Maybe the smartest thing is for us to look at the Bible for religious matters, and science for what can be observed, tested, and falsified, using the Scientific Method. Since our origins are not subject to these methods of evaluation, I would think it prudent to reject “science’s explanation” for our origins.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

The evidence is as I presented it already. You come along after hundreds of posts on other threads regarding evolution and you admit that “it would be nice for Catholicism if evolution is false”. With that statement, you provided evidence. None of the Darwinist-defenders have said such a thing in many posts. You, however, very naively just blurt it out. Clearly, you see an obvious conflict between evolution and Catholicism, as most rational people do. But this one simple point has not been admitted by the Darwinists here on CAF in the past few months at least (check the most recent threads on evolution).

This constitutes absolutely zero evidence the “Darwinist-defenders” are being deliberately dishonest and engaging in “lies and cover-ups”, only that they themselves perceive no conflict between evolution and Catholicism. So you still have no evidence. “As most rational people do” is the fallacy of the bandwagon approach, which you would quickly recognize if it were used against you, e.g., “the overwhelming evidence for evolution is accepted by all rational people”.

The evidence is in the fact that you see a problem and mentioned it in the most off-hand manner. Of course, many critics of evolution see the same problem you mentioned.

I’ll just say that your opinion here contradicts what we’ve heard from the Darwinian-corner for a while now. For them, evolution does not provide any difficulties for theology or philosophy – no more than plumbing does.

Is it just possible that I see a problem they don’t? Is there going to be any allowance for a difference of opinion here? You seem to want to take as self-evident what is only a matter of opinion - and then accuse those who disagree of “lies and cover-ups”. I have called you on this again and you refuse to have the good grace to admit you went too far.

I disagree. You incorrectly called my approach an “ad hominem” but I am arguing against the arguments and how they’re presented – and in fact, the content of the arguments (a lack of admission that Darwinism is problematical).

But again you’re taking it as self-evident that Darwinism is problematical - which just the very assertion at issue. “Darwinists are zealots!” is an ad hominem argument which also doesn’t address what is at issue.

I didn’t ask that they see the theory as heavily flawed, but to admit that there are at least some flaws.

Because it is not an infallible teaching, nor is it in any way perfect. Supposedly, scientists are objective and unbiased enough to admit such a thing.

Can’t be any such thing as a “perfect” or “infallible” scientific theory. All you can get is a very high posterior probability approaching one. Every scientist should admit this. I’m sure the “Darwinist zealots” on this thread would be happy to. BTW the definition of “flaw” in a theory is “data the theory doesn’t explain”. And, if you understand the concept of Occam’s razor you would see that this is why common descent of species, rather than independent special creation is held to in biology; as well as why gravity, rather than angels pushing heavenly bodies around, is adhered to in astronomy.

One would hope that scientists would not be dogmatic the way people who are defending religious dogma are. In fact, they’re supposed to be neutral and objective and simply follow the evidence. Therefore, when I see scientists who are incapable of admitting that Darwinism has flaws and who react with emotion to criticisms of Charles Darwin himself, I question if there is enough objectivity present in them.

To answer this I need to know exactly what is meant to “Darwinism” here. Do you mean descent with modification alone, do you mean natural selection, do you mean the specifics of the genetics involved in producing genetic variaibility, or what?

 

[Chuck_H]

I won’t put words in the mouth of SeekingCatholic but we have been on a different thread before and you being a theologian may be of enormous help here.

The reason it would be better for the Church is polygenism which supports a larger founding population group than two.

For the evolutionist (put crudely but for space I abbreviate the central argument) If Eden falls then what is the nature of original sin? This takes into account the surety that man is and always has been desperately in need of God’s help.
Chuck H

 

[SeekingCatholic]

There was quite a bit in the list that I would question. But, since this thread is confined to the ideas relating to creation and evolution, I thought I would step in on this point and point into the direction of the God-breathed soul where it all began.

There isn’t evidence showing a correlation of brain activity with every mental process - especially some of those supposed to be conducted by an immaterial intellect after data has been collected from the senses.

Yep. For instance, brain activity is correlated with memory and imagination, as well as logical reasoning, mathematical reasoning, etc., all supposed “faculties of the immaterial intellect”.

Phantom limbs, for example, have a rational explanation via the neuroplasticity of the brain.

Other examples, however, such as people born blind “seeing things” during a NDE, do not have such an easy explanation (if one can call neuroplasticity something easy to understand).

The first is definitely correlated with brain activity. The second, while not backed up by hard evidence, since it’s just a little difficult to do an fMRI, MEG, or EEG scan on someone undergoing a NDE, I would hypothesize activity in the occipital lobes.

There’s actually quite a bit of evidence, both hard evidence and anecdotal evidence, that the “mind” can (and does) work independently of the “brain”.

Sorry, that’s wishful thinking. Perhaps you could point me to the journal article in which it was shown that any mental process went on independently of any brain activity?

If you want to discuss this point further I would love to engage that discussion in another thread if you want to start one. I’d rather not participate in this thread that much if possible.

OK, I’ll do that. IMHO the coming war over neuroscience is going to make evolution look like a minor skirmish.

 

[Camron]

OK, I’ll do that. IMHO the coming war over neuroscience is going to make evolution look like a minor skirmish.

That’s what I think too.

BTW, saying that all human behavior can be reduced to mental activity in the brain itself is a form of materialism that directly goes against Catholic belief.

So saying that it’s wishful thinking that the “mind” can (and does) work independently of the “brain” really is going against Catholic teaching.

It’s late so I’ll check in tomorrow to see what’s up.

 

[drpmjhess]

They have tried that. It didn’t work out so well. Many scientists, myself included, were initially attracted to the idea, but when it became clear that it was a religious movement (and who was part of the leadership) they left.
I have an acquaintance who is doing what you suggest; there are some ID think tanks which have laboratories looking for something that might support ID. So far, nothing. But some are trying.

Perhaps they would make more progress with an actual division of ID biology to complement the cell and molecular biology sides of departments.

 

[drpmjhess]

I won’t put words in the mouth of SeekingCatholic but we have been on a different thread before and you being a theologian may be of enormous help here.

The reason it would be better for the Church is polygenism which supports a larger founding population group than two.

For the evolutionist (put crudely but for space I abbreviate the central argument) If Eden falls then what is the nature of original sin? This takes into account the surety that man is and always has been desperately in need of God’s help.
Chuck H

Thanks, Chuck – I’ll try to comment on Monday (it’s too late now).

Petrus