Evolution and Darwin against Religion and God

  • Thread starter Thread starter John121
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And this is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Corinthians 2:14
 

Real History​

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

“It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.”
  • Catholic Answers
 
Last edited:
From Communion and Stewardship:

"69. The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that, if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” ( Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” ( Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
Emoticons are a facility that are a part of the board. Sorry if you don’t like them.
Click to expand...
Just like words, some emoticons are nice, and some are not.
Gorgias said:
If I’m calling you to task for what appears to be an approach that’s unreasonable, why is that uncalled for? Why is that rude?
Click to expand...
Having a friendly debate is good, and often helpful to both parties, but lowering the level of the debate via the use of condescending remarks, sounds, and emoticons cheapens the process. I could get down in the sarcastic dirt with you, but I won’t.
Gorgias said:
off unreasonable stuff, too. Can’t rely on a degree to measure the value of a person’s statement…
Click to expand...
That is precisely my point. So, read Dr. Brown’s ideas for yourself, and debate the ideas, not whether or not he should be “allowed” to propose them.
 
I wish someone would put together a bunch of good-looking emoticons that people could use on boards that only naturally supply “emoji” or “emoji”-esque emoticons. “Emoji” are lame-looking in their style, in my opinion.
[/quote]

Yes, the ones on the old Catholic forum were great, but when they change over to this new software we got stuck with these…pretty lame.
 
edwest211 said:
Symbiotic relationships have no explanation other than - it happened. So? How did it happen?
Click to expand...
On a very simple level, symbiosis follows that species that have some ecological proximity begin to evolve traits that work off each other. While these traits make it easier for them to survive, they are not critical to survival initially. However, ecosystems change and stressors are introduced, it may become critical, keeping the symbiosis and killing of those without it.

To give a couple examples:

Predator/prey encourages an evolution of traits to make it easier to catch or escape. If a member of a prey species develops a trait that makes it easier to escape the predator, they’re more likely to escape as the predator kills others. That trait then can be passed on. However, as that trait takes over, the predator may find itself at a disadvantage, but any traits that make the predator more fit to hunt the prey, particularly its new trait, will make it easier for those organisms to catch, eat, and survive. Over time, this back-and-forth effectively brings out two new species, possibly even leaving the older ones extinct.

We can also consider the tree/fungal relationship. It’s possible that an ecosystem can easily support trees without fungi due to the relative richness of the soil. Fungi exist but aren’t critical. However, let’s say a new species is introduced that is rather aggressive in taking nutrients from upper layers of the soil. The trees in the current ecosystem may struggle with this new species. However, those trees that evolved deeper roots may be able to reach still-nutrient-rich-soil below the contested area. For other trees, they may have evolved a way to work with fungi to get nutrients, requiring less from the now-depleted soil. Those trees that neither evolved deeper roots nor evolved some form of symbiosis with fungi are now killed off, and we thousands of years later are none-the-wiser.

Those are just a couple theoreticals, but we even see elements of this in human society today. Domestication can be thought of as a form of symbiosis, and it’s at the core of much of our agriculture and pet industries and used to be core to hunting (less so now). Invasive species are another case. Sometimes it wrecks ecological damage (e.g. Burmese pythons in the Everglades), but sometimes it all works out (e.g. the sword fern as decoration).

In the end, symbiosis is arguably one of the strongest cases for evolution by natural selection, as natural selection is very well suited to explaining the phenomena, and we obviously have observable cases in domestication and invasive species. Even beyond evolution itself, we have other fields of biology dedicated to understanding these relationships, like ecology and its many sub-fields. That is an excellent place to start if you want to look more into this. Other fields (e.g. some forms of geology) might be more suited to the actual historical development, since ecology is a bit more here-and-now (at least how I studied it before making a drastic shift to computer science).
 
ZMystiCat said:
On a very simple level, symbiosis follows that species that have some ecological proximity begin to evolve traits that work off each other. While these traits make it easier for them to survive, they are not critical to survival initially. However, ecosystems change and stressors are introduced, it may become critical, keeping the symbiosis and killing of those without it.

To give a couple examples:

Predator/prey encourages an evolution of traits to make it easier to catch or escape. If a member of a prey species develops a trait that makes it easier to escape the predator, they’re more likely to escape as the predator kills others. That trait then can be passed on. However, as that trait takes over, the predator may find itself at a disadvantage, but any traits that make the predator more fit to hunt the prey, particularly its new trait, will make it easier for those organisms to catch, eat, and survive. Over time, this back-and-forth effectively brings out two new species, possibly even leaving the older ones extinct.
Click to expand...
Speculation and generalization… can you tell us exactly how something like the 25,000 - 30,000 different species of orchid plants came into being ?
 
Techno2000 said:
Speculation and generalization… can you tell us exactly how something like the 25,000 - 30,000 different species of orchid plants came into being ?
Click to expand...
As in, the exact history of how each came into being? In that case, no, I couldn’t. It isn’t something I’ve dedicated my life to studying. I’m not even sure anyone knows the exact history of all them, as nature isn’t known for its robust historical preservation.

That said, my comment wasn’t designed to give a robust look at any particular case. It was mostly to explain what natural selection is, because at this point, I don’t think most in this thread who deny evolution even know what it is that they’re rejecting.
 
phys.org

The evolution of orchids

(PhysOrg.com) -- Charles Darwin and many other scientists have long been puzzled by the evolution of orchids, the largest and most diverse family of flowering plants on Earth. Now genetic sequencing is giving scientists insights into how these plants could evolve so quickly.
phys.org phys.org
 
edwest211 said:
Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence”
Click to expand...
Aquinas, right? And I am taking “contingent” as “chance,” “by accident,” etc. I think a little consideration of this passage would pay dividends in terms of evolution. Schonborn et al. do not insist–nor should they–in HOW God works. As this passage says, it could be “guided” or it could be “contingent.”

Let’s take a quick look at randomness in a slice of real life.
I wake up at a random time.
I hear random birds singing.
It’s raining. Exactly how much rain and exactly where it falls is random.
I brush my teeth. Random bacteria survive the brushing.
I put on clothes–even if I have “chosen” them, they are to a large extent “random” (if I had a choice of all the clothes in the world, would I chose this particular outfit today? No. It’s random.)
I eat a random amount of food for breakfast.
Meanwhile, my cells are growing and re-producing randomly.
And somewhere in the Brazilian rainforest, a butterfly flaps it’s wings…

“Randomness” (or “contingency” if you like) is a constant in everyday life. And we haven’t even considered the broader world and universe.

Now al-'Ashari pondered the same question in early 10th c. Baghdad. He came up with what has been called “Islamic occasionalism.” In simple terms, God is constantly re-creating the universe. I fire an arrow. But God is constantly re-creating that arrow in flight. If it hits its target, that is entirely due to God’s direct action (“providence” if you like). This theory destroys the concept of causality, which of course would be condemned for the same reason some here are condemning evolution: causality removes God from the equation. Carried to its logical conclusion, it leads suicide bombers to say in interviews (available on PBS) “I did not kill the people. God killed the people. I pressed the button. But God decided if the explosion would occur and whom it would kill.” All very logical. But…

Two points: First, as has been mentioned above, “random” mutations have now been shown to be not quite as random as we thought. There is some sort of feedback with the environment going on. How this works, we don’t know yet. Weather patterns are a “random” phenomenon that have turned out to be not quite as random as once thought. To a large extent they can be mathematically modelled. ( A friend did this in his PhD thesis years ago). In other words, there is some sort of order, and at some point maybe we’ll be able understand it better. In terms of evolution, instead of saying “random” it seems to me to be more prudent to say “seemingly random.”
 
Last edited:
part 2, as always…

Second point: Back to Aquinas. Divine causality could be contingent. After all, if you believe God created the entire universe and all the physical laws that govern it, why not throw randomness into the mix? We (humans) do it ourselves by using Monte Carlo simulations in computer programs. In other words, we recognize the importance of randomness and build it in. Is anyone here denying the ability of God to do the same on a much larger scale? Clearly (unless you believe in Islamic occasionalism) the universe is “random.” This is not–on a religious level–denying God’s ultimate role. It’s simply pointing out that God is not restricted to “direct” (“Poof! Let there be light!”) actions. God can act indirectly. To say otherwise is to place restrictions on God’s power. “My ways are not your ways…” Isaiah. It’s good to keep that in mind.

Finally, the original poster is upset because God is removed from evolution. To attribute causal effects of natural phenomena to God is not science; it’s theology. We figured this out in the 17th c. In a public school, religion has no place. In a Catholic school, you might want to preface a unit on evolution with “Remember that God is the ultimate cause, and that God can use indirect means to accomplish his goals…”
 
You keep making this distinction, and it’s a classic Creationist distinction, accept just as much evolution as seems reasonable from the stance of a personal quasi-literal interpretation of Genesis.

But no, I’m afraid there is no difference between micro and macro. They are the same process, but as populations diverge, the genetic differences that accumulate in two populations with the same common ancestor will end up with speciation (lack of interfertility either through significant chromosomal changes or in some cases simply through geographic isolation, where while interbreeding is possible, the two populations never encounter each other).

But I have another challenge for you, which I will late out in another post.
 
One neat bit of evidence for evolution, and something of a chronometer for determining when species arose from progenitor populations is endogenous retroviral insertions. Retroviruses have a peculiar habit of, on occasion, leaving some of their genes in the host. These become part of the germ line of the host, and when the host reproduces, those viral genes get passed on to offspring just like any “native” genes. Molecular biologists can use these viral “fossils” to trace back evolutionary events, the theory being that if a common ancestor was infected with the virus, and passed on those “horizontally transferred” genes, then odds are that every population descended from the common ancestor will have those viral genes, even if the descendant populations have speciated (macro-evolution if you prefer).


Now that’s the sort of thing modern evolutionary theory would predict. These shared HERVs between various primate species have given us a very good tool for building phylogenic trees, and yes, it demonstrates that common ancestors of humans and other great apes, indeed other primates in general, evolved from common ancestors who, just like their modern descendants, got flus and other viral infections, and those ancient viruses left their mark in the genomes of all the descendants of those common ancestors.

In other words, God put a lot of work into making us look like we evolved from common ancestor shared with other primates.
 
niceatheist said:
In other words, God put a lot of work into making us look like we evolved from common ancestor shared with other primates.
Click to expand...
We know that there are 500 or so conserved core genetic components of life of which every body plan can be built. Common design is a better explanation, Convergent “evolution” is support for this.

We are better understanding these retroviruses actually play a role in gene expression and not evo leftovers. There are quite a number of papers on this.
 
You just skipped right over what ERVs are. They are very specifically insertion of viral genes into the germ line, and whether or not they play a role or are just junk gene sequences conserved because they have a neutral effect, they got there because the common ancestor of populations got infected with the virus.

Common design, as you put it, would explain their existence or lack of existence, because Common design explains absolutely nothing (by happily explaining every possible observation). That’s why Creationism has no utility.
 
It is very wrong to exclude God. The propaganda message is clear: God must not be included at all costs. Forever. The Church does not have the limits that science imposes on itself. Yes, science is not theology. The Church understands that. Science suffers from partial blindness. And the Church cannot be more clear:

“In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” ( Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top