Evolution and God

[masterjedi747]

And when scientists do turn to atheism, their relationship to what they call the evidence changes, doesn’t it?

Only in their minds.

Richard Dawkins didn’t write The God Delusion with nothing more than his disgust over the actions of the God of the Bible. No, he and Sam Harris and PZ Myers, credit what you refer to as the science, which should properly be called the results of their research, observations, and conclusions.

As I said, the natural sciences can point you in a general direction – for example, if you observed nature and (correctly or incorrectly) concluded that the world was deterministic, then of course that’s going to impact your understanding of philosophy (in regards to free will, among other things).

Richard Dawkins can certainly credit the science for pointing him in the general direction, but that doesn’t mean he’s right. He might be (rather, almost certainly is) involving all sorts of other false philosophical premises and syllogisms in his arguments. Richard Dawkin’s errors aren’t the fault of the natural science per se, but are rather fault of his personal interpretation of the science that he obtained by adding his own philosophical spin to it.

…But don’t come here and post the non-scientifically provable conclusion that, well, it must have gone this way which contradicts the Bible.

Hello? It doesn’t necessarily contradict the Bible. If it did, we wouldn’t be having this argument in the first place. The Church would have said “that interpretation of Genesis is not valid”, and the issue would have been closed for Catholics. But it didn’t… in fact, the Church has said quite the opposite, over and over and over again. Evolution does not necessarily contradict the Bible.

God is God. He can and does, and still does, peform miracles.

Absolutely.

You might say science can’t study that. Sure it does. Every time doctors or scientists or other specialists are called in by the Vatican to render their expert opinions on miracles in 2008.

:banghead: …YES. EXACTLY. And you want to know why the Church declares those to be miracles? Because the study supports it. Because the facts can’t be sufficiently accounted for by the natural sciences. Because the supernatural is clearly involved in some way. And if those things don’t hold up, if modern science ends up concluding that the supernatural was not clearly involved, then *it *doesn’t get declared a miracle.

Why are you concerned about that? Is it about truth or just the idea that you think you can prove the Church is wrong about something?

Truth, absolutely. When the fruits of human reason appear to clash with Divine Revelation, something has to give. Maybe our results are wrong… no, because there’s no evidence in any branch of science to support that idea, while every bit of evidence that we do have is pointing to the fact that what we’re already concluded must be true. Maybe the Bible is wrong… no, because we know from the Church that it is inerrant and inspired by God. Or maybe there’s a middle ground… maybe Genesis isn’t intended to be taken absolutely 100% literally.

Yes, Ed, I want the truth. And for that reason I will not needlessly ignore or discount half of the evidence, just to make my life simpler.

My reading of posts here clearly indicates the goal is not knowledge but the erosion or elimination of Church teaching and the replacement of God and divine revelation with human knowledge.

On this forum? Hardly. The goal is truth, the not-so-simple but ultimately beautiful truth that results from the fusion of the best of modern science and orthodox philosophy.

The Church has the complementary answer. We were infallibly developed into our current form by God. But, Adam and Eve were our first parents. The Bible, while not a scientific text, records things God actually did. It records things Jesus Christ actually did. Our soul is not just an abstract, throw away concept, it is an integral part of us. Our total humanity includes body and soul. Our minds are not just developments of matter and genetics but our link to the divine.

Absolutely.

 

[PhilVaz]

Ed << See your post #64 which contains the words “absolutely true.” Why did you add that? >>

It was my PhilVaz kind of humor. I do believe those articles are absolutely true, in fact I corrected one or two errors I even found in Dalrymple’s book about the location of one of the sites or something, I forget which.

If you can find any errors in those articles, I’d like to see them. Absolutely true and inerrant articles, as far as I can tell. The numbers will only get better and more precise in the future since that’s how science works. History is a matter of interpretation, so the “flood geology” article may be disputed. But the author is an evangelical Christian himself who accepts the Bible.

Ed << Do you accept miracles by God? Those done by Jesus Christ? Or only those miracles that don’t get in the way of an evolutionary explanation? >>

Absolutely accept the miracles as absolutely true.

Evidence for the Resurrection on my apologetics site is the primary miracle

I don’t have a specific article on my site defending all biblical miracles per se, but something will be said about Jesus’ miracles when I hopefully finish this Part2: Evidence for Jesus article in a few months. Part 1 article is done.

For now I recommend the C.S. Lewis book Miracles, and the anti-Hume philosophy book, Hume’s Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles. Happy?

Doesn’t have anything to do with the topic of this thread: God and Evolution, but I answer anyway.

Phil P

 

[Namesake]

This might be a shocker to you, but I actually believe that God created everything.

Which God? The same meaning as Einstein or Hawking, or the God of Abraham?

 

[Orogeny]

Which God? The same meaning as Einstein or Hawking, or the God of Abraham?

There is only one God.

Peace

Tim

 

[masterjedi747]

I am skeptical about claims that there was no flood as recorded in Genesis. Around the world, there are many stories about such a flood.

If the entire human population descended from the few survivors of Noah’s Ark, then of course the flood story will have travelled all around the world with humanity as it later spread out.

Unless you’d actually rather defend the possibility that Noah and his family weren’t the only ones to survive the flood… Hmm, I thought not. Good call.

 

[edwest2]

Only in their minds.

As I said, the natural sciences can point you in a general direction – for example, if you observed nature and (correctly or incorrectly) concluded that the world was deterministic, then of course that’s going to impact your understanding of philosophy (in regards to free will, among other things).

Richard Dawkins can certainly credit the science for pointing him in the general direction, but that doesn’t mean he’s right. He might be (rather, almost certainly is) involving all sorts of other false philosophical premises and syllogisms in his arguments. Richard Dawkin’s errors aren’t the fault of the natural science per se, but are rather fault of his personal interpretation of the science that he obtained by adding his own philosophical spin to it.

Hello? It doesn’t necessarily contradict the Bible. If it did, we wouldn’t be having this argument in the first place. The Church would have said “that interpretation of Genesis is not valid”, and the issue would have been closed for Catholics. But it didn’t… in fact, the Church has said quite the opposite, over and over and over again. Evolution does not necessarily contradict the Bible.

Absolutely.

:banghead: …YES. EXACTLY. And you want to know why the Church declares those to be miracles? Because the study supports it. Because the facts can’t be sufficiently accounted for by the natural sciences. Because the supernatural is clearly involved in some way. And if those things don’t hold up, if modern science ends up concluding that the supernatural was not clearly involved, then *it *doesn’t get declared a miracle.

Truth, absolutely. When the fruits of human reason appear to clash with Divine Revelation, something has to give. Maybe our results are wrong… no, because there’s no evidence in any branch of science to support that idea, while every bit of evidence that we do have is pointing to the fact that what we’re already concluded must be true. Maybe the Bible is wrong… no, because we know from the Church that it is inerrant and inspired by God. Or maybe there’s a middle ground… maybe Genesis isn’t intended to be taken absolutely 100% literally.

Yes, Ed, I want the truth. And for that reason I will not needlessly ignore or discount half of the evidence, just to make my life simpler.

On this forum? Hardly. The goal is truth, the not-so-simple but ultimately beautiful truth that results from the fusion of the best of modern science and orthodox philosophy.

Absolutely.

Sorry, masterjedi747, this just doesn’t work in the current Western socio-cultural environment.

Have you read a business contract? The rule is, if it’s not in there it does not exist. The same is true of the biology textbook. God does not exist. Sure, we can talk about it here.

Beautiful truth? What’s beautiful about it? Go to the online journal Evolutionary Psychology - peer reviewed. They are trying to convince you that your every action and reaction was caused - chosen actually - by your genes. God? Pfft! A fiction of genetic adaptive evolution! What’s not to understand?

There is a battle going on for hearts and minds, and souls.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

“Absolutely true” does seem related to infallible, which I was told science is not…but if it’s “absolutely true” that is not much room left for error.

And you didn’t answer Ed’s question about your belief about miracles. You merely deflected.

Pax Christi tecum.

Just as a follow up to this question, here is what I mean. I guess he considers me a cafeteria Catholic.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=260978

Peace

Tim

 

[strugglingalong]

Just as a follow up to this question, here is what I mean. I guess he considers me a cafeteria Catholic.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=260978

Peace

Tim

But your name is Tim

Do you think natural selection can be believed by a Catholic? I don’t see how it can be…

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[Orogeny]

The same is true of the biology textbook. God does not exist. Sure, we can talk about it here.

Reference to a biology textbook that explicitly says that God doesn’t exist. If you can’t or won’t provide a reference to back that up, you implicitly agree that you are knowingly and willingly not telling the truth.

Peace

Tim

 

[Namesake]

Sorry, masterjedi747, this just doesn’t work in the current Western socio-cultural environment.

Have you read a business contract? The rule is, if it’s not in there it does not exist. The same is true of the biology textbook. God does not exist. Sure, we can talk about it here.

Beautiful truth? What’s beautiful about it? Go to the online journal Evolutionary Psychology - peer reviewed. They are trying to convince you that your every action and reaction was caused - chosen actually - by your genes. God? Pfft! A fiction of genetic adaptive evolution! What’s not to understand?

There is a battle going on for hearts and minds, and souls.

God bless,
Ed

Some of us just are interested in the minds. People ought to believe truth, not just belief. Belief in belief is pretty shaky ground upon which to base a life. Religion has value but it cannot replace evidence (or even modify evidence).

 

[Orogeny]

But your name is Tim

Do you think natural selection can be believed by a Catholic? I don’t see how it can be…

Pax Christi tecum.

Well, I am Catholic and I accept natural selection. So my answer would be yes.

I think that you may be confusing natural selection with random mutation. Random mutation is what most literalists have a problem with.

My take on that is that nothing is random to God.

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

Hi Tim,

I’m sorry if you got the impression that was directed at you. It was a boiled down version of all the let’s-focus-on-the-science-not-God arguments I’ve seen here. Science, science, science. But what about God? Yeah, what about Him? Is He even there? Sure, but only in a symbolically symbolic kind of way. You know, symbolically.

But what about the Word of God? It’s all symbolic, trust me (once again, that is a boiled down version of various things I’ve read and was not directed at anyone in particular).

Peace,
Ed

 

[strugglingalong]

Well, I am Catholic and I accept natural selection. So my answer would be yes.

I think that you may be confusing natural selection with random mutation. Random mutation is what most literalists have a problem with.

My take on that is that nothing is random to God.

Peace

Tim

But natural selection is how one species evolves, isn’t it? Doesn’t it do so on its own apart from God, through chance?

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[edwest2]

Ed << See your post #64 which contains the words “absolutely true.” Why did you add that? >>

It was my PhilVaz kind of humor. I do believe those articles are absolutely true, in fact I corrected one or two errors I even found in Dalrymple’s book about the location of one of the sites or something, I forget which.

If you can find any errors in those articles, I’d like to see them. Absolutely true and inerrant articles, as far as I can tell. The numbers will only get better and more precise in the future since that’s how science works. History is a matter of interpretation, so the “flood geology” article may be disputed. But the author is an evangelical Christian himself who accepts the Bible.

Ed << Do you accept miracles by God? Those done by Jesus Christ? Or only those miracles that don’t get in the way of an evolutionary explanation? >>

Absolutely accept the miracles as absolutely true.

Evidence for the Resurrection on my apologetics site is the primary miracle

I don’t have a specific article on my site defending all biblical miracles per se, but something will be said about Jesus’ miracles when I hopefully finish this Part2: Evidence for Jesus article in a few months. Part 1 article is done.

For now I recommend the C.S. Lewis book Miracles, and the anti-Hume philosophy book, Hume’s Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles. Happy?

Doesn’t have anything to do with the topic of this thread: God and Evolution, but I answer anyway.

Phil P

Thank you for your reply. Inerrant? Wow.

Tell me. Do you think it’s possible God formed the earth in one day and had it cool down? If the earth is billions of years old, why do we still have short half-life elements?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

Hi Tim,

I’m sorry if you got the impression that was directed at you. It was a boiled down version of all the let’s-focus-on-the-science-not-God arguments I’ve seen here. Science, science, science. But what about God? Yeah, what about Him? Is He even there? Sure, but only in a symbolically symbolic kind of way. You know, symbolically.

But what about the Word of God? It’s all symbolic, trust me (once again, that is a boiled down version of various things I’ve read and was not directed at anyone in particular).

Peace,
Ed

I haven’t seen a single thread that was “lets focus on science not God”. The problem you have, Ed, is that you deny that one can accept science and God.

Still waiting on your textbook reference.

Peace

Tim

 

[Namesake]

Well, I am Catholic and I accept natural selection. So my answer would be yes.

I think that you may be confusing natural selection with random mutation. Random mutation is what most literalists have a problem with.

My take on that is that nothing is random to God.

But you do understand that basic evolution theory includes (in fact must include) random mutation. It’s the natural selection part that most theists dislike because by that mechanism God does not select, nature does. Non random mutation necessarily involves design and evolution specifically rejects design.

 

[PhilVaz]

Ed << Science, science, science. But what about God? >>

PBS Evolution: What About God?

Google Video full program: What About God?

There’s your answer. We evolutionists think of everything.

Phil P

 

[strugglingalong]

But you do understand that basic evolution theory includes (in fact must include) random mutation. It’s the natural selection part that most theists dislike because by that mechanism God does not select, nature does. Non random mutation necessarily involves design and evolution specifically rejects design.

Right, the nature selecting and chance is the problem.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[Orogeny]

If the earth is billions of years old, why do we still have short half-life elements?

If the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old, why don’t we still have plutonium-244 occurring naturally?

Peace

Tim

 

[Namesake]

Right, the nature selecting and chance is the problem.

Random mutation is just the way meiosis works. Natural selection is the way evolution works. Certain alleles form by chance and their frequency in a gene pool is affected by natural selection through competition.