Evolution and Relativism

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ed, could you describe what exactly you mean by the evolution taught in textbooks? Also, how does this differ from your understanding of evolution?
The evolution taught in textbooks presupposes an engine that

A) Creates itself.

B) A series of random mutations is given credit through fortuitous selection for providing a pathway toward increasing complexity and the development of novel organs. And an increase in genetic information.

C) There is no evidence that evolution can actually, step by step, yield a pair of eyeballs, an optic nerve and the nerve’s connection to the brain. The Law of Probability indicates that this outcome is unlikely, putting the number at beyond the atoms available in the known universe. This cannot, by the way, be analogized to flipping a coin. The organism is meant to live in a dynamic environment. It must survive predators, fire, flood, drought and injury through accident, further raising the odds against successfully passing along any mutation to its offspring.

For my view of evolution, please see Communion and Stewardship:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

See part 64, which includes the words “incompatible with the Catholic faith.”

And part 69, which includes the words “simply cannot exist.”

Peace,
Ed
 
We can see this in current biology textbooks:

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)
Peace,
Ed

Care to disprove some of those claims?
 
“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
Hmmm… the last sentence there probably is a bit inappropriate for a science book…
The other quotes I think are perfectly reasonable though.
 
Those quotes reek of scientism – that is ideology, not science. Separating evolution from ideology is going to be one of the greatest challenges of our time.
 
The evolution taught in textbooks presupposes an engine that

A) Creates itself.

B) A series of random mutations is given credit through fortuitous selection for providing a pathway toward increasing complexity and the development of novel organs. And an increase in genetic information.

C) There is no evidence that evolution can actually, step by step, yield a pair of eyeballs, an optic nerve and the nerve’s connection to the brain. The Law of Probability indicates that this outcome is unlikely, putting the number at beyond the atoms available in the known universe. This cannot, by the way, be analogized to flipping a coin. The organism is meant to live in a dynamic environment. It must survive predators, fire, flood, drought and injury through accident, further raising the odds against successfully passing along any mutation to its offspring.

For my view of evolution, please see Communion and Stewardship:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

See part 64, which includes the words “incompatible with the Catholic faith.”

And part 69, which includes the words “simply cannot exist.”

Peace,
Ed
A: That’s just stupid to say. It presupposes rules exist, just like gravity, electromagnetism, etc.

B: Yes. ? What’s your point?

C: This is well studied and understood if you took the time to google it. In fact, as far as the eye is concerned, there are animals that exist today with just about each step you can imagine. Here’s one of 100 videos on youtube about the topic:
youtube.com/watch?v=Yj_lNQerUJ4
 
Hmmm… the last sentence there probably is a bit inappropriate for a science book…
The other quotes I think are perfectly reasonable though.
By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

Let me ask you, how is this person competent you make such a claim? Expecialy when most of the Christian world says there is no conflict with evolution and Christianity.

Also, if cosmologists can’t come to the conclusion that the evolution of the cosmos is purposeless, how is it that the biologist can come to the conclusions that biological evolution is purposeless?
 
Perhaps I haven’t covered this section in actuarial science yet, but to my knowledge-
  • There is no “law of probability”
  • If there was, there would be some calculation(s) involved in its invocation
  • No calculation or definition of the law of probability was put forth in the aforementioned post.
 
Those quotes reek of scientism – that is ideology, not science. Separating evolution from ideology is going to be one of the greatest challenges of our time.
Ideology is more important than science right now. Just convince people you’re another animal, get comedians to say “There is no ‘up there,’” and put Man created God and Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief. on buses and billboards. Then, if you can convince a few people, they will vote your way.

Peace,
Ed
 
By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

Let me ask you, how is this person competent you make such a claim? Expecialy when most of the Christian world says there is no conflict with evolution and Christianity.

Also, if cosmologists can’t come to the conclusion that the evolution of the cosmos is purposeless, how is it that the biologist can come to the conclusions that biological evolution is purposeless?
The point I took from there was that the processes of life… how things evolve and how your cells separate and the physical chemistry of how that works ceased to be a theological discussion, just like the stars ceased to be magical dots in the sky with cosmology. It’s not attacking God, it’s saying that we found that in this one specific area, it seems that there was not a theological explanation controlling the specifics of it.
 
Very interesting, Ed (I wasn’t being sarcastic before, I was actually curious to see what problems you saw with textbook biology). This is disappointing that the textbooks try to portray evolution as something as elementary as flipping coins or rolling dice. I won’t get a chance to read your link until later tonight, but I’ll post again when I do
 
A: That’s just stupid to say. It presupposes rules exist, just like gravity, electromagnetism, etc.

B: Yes. ? What’s your point?

C: This is well studied and understood if you took the time to google it. In fact, as far as the eye is concerned, there are animals that exist today with just about each step you can imagine. Here’s one of 100 videos on youtube about the topic:
youtube.com/watch?v=Yj_lNQerUJ4
Animals that exist today with just about each step? Those aren’t steps. Those animals were designed to have simple light sensing organs, more complex light sensing organs, all the way up to the human eye and the ability of some animals to see into the ultraviolet. It is imagination talking when you mention steps, not reality. The coelocanth heart was called “primitive.” No, it works fine as is. It is a simple way to pump blood but it obviously works just fine. Wishful thinking is involved here.

Peace,
Ed
 
“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)
“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)
I mean stuff like this is absurd. Surely the atheist on this forum that has read our posts can agree that this is enough ambiguity in the notion of a final cause of the evolution of the cosmos, to require people to not speak in absolutes when teaching our children.

I do not see how any intellectual honest person can claim that this is not ideology. It seems like the atheist comunity is not playing nice in the sandbox.
 
The point I took from there was that the processes of life… how things evolve and how your cells separate and the physical chemistry of how that works ceased to be a theological discussion, just like the stars ceased to be magical dots in the sky with cosmology. It’s not attacking God, it’s saying that we found that in this one specific area, it seems that there was not a theological explanation controlling the specifics of it.
I agree with you here, however the tone and the manner that it is presented in the textbook is not representing this fairly.
 
Animals that exist today with just about each step? Those aren’t steps. Those animals were designed to have simple light sensing organs, more complex light sensing organs, all the way up to the human eye and the ability of some animals to see into the ultraviolet. It is imagination talking when you mention steps, not reality. The coelocanth heart was called “primitive.” No, it works fine as is. It is a simple way to pump blood but it obviously works just fine. Wishful thinking is involved here.

Peace,
Ed
Do you honestly not understand how that video is rebuttal to the probability based argument you put forth before?
 
By coupling seemingly undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made ad hoc theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes irrelevant to the understanding of the specific origin of species.

Something like this would be better.
 
Dear fellow posters,

Creation is not a theory on the contrary it is a fact revealed by Almighty God. Evolution is a fact within certain restricted spheres, but a mere theory when made of universal application. One must concede evolution in knowledge, in growth from an infant to manhood. As a universal theory, however, evolution from nothing is manifestly absurd. Yet granted that God created something, it is quite conceivable that He endowed His original creation with power to evolve. Did He create vegetables, and animals separately, or did He create a vast rotating nebula and give it the power to develop into various forms of being and life? This latter idea has never been validated; it is a matter of pure conjecture, with no certainty attached to it, except that science discredits spontaneous generation of life.

Did man himself evolve from the lower species? Well it is absolutely certain that his soul did not. The soul is an intelligent spirit and an intelligent spirit simply cannot evolve from matter. Moreover, God has revealed that the soul is created immediately by Himself - “then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2: 7).

So did God make all things out of nothing (creation ex nihilo)? Yes, according to the right interpretation of that much misunderstood expression. God says that that is how it all began and surely He must know. Thus it is written: “I beg you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. Thus also mankind comes into being” (II Macc. 7: 28). In order to refute this the axiom, “out of nothing, nothing can come” is cited. Granted absolutely nothing, nothing could ever be at all. Nothing could never become something. Nothing has nothing to work upon, and no faculties with which to operate. e Hence by force of logic we must admit an eternal God.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait
 
Ed, et al,
Sometimes these conversations take on the form of the man who goes to city hall to complain about water in his basement only to discover the dam or dike has collapsed.

OK, things ain’t what they used to be. You’ve established that much. It’s a given. It’s a hopeless cesspool.

What then, realistically, is going to turn it around or make it better?
Rewriting a science textbook? And how likely is the prospect of this happening? I mean realistically what would it take to get science books rewritten? A massive secular philosophical shift thats what - and that simply is not going to happen anytime soon.
What is going to clean up the media?
What is going to rewrite the textbooks?
What is going to increase the number of religious vocations?
What is going to rekindle charity?
What is going to shut down the contraceptive manufacturers?
What is going to make divorce illegal?
What is going to return us to the time when the haggard homeless were happy hobos?
What is going to diminish the glorification of vice?
What is going to reinvigorate the pursuit of virtue?
What is going to reawaken people to the fact that they will have to render an account of their life before God?
Realistically, what is going to turn it around?
Well crafted words?
Logic?
Policies?
Science?
Prayer?
Lighting a candle?
Anything short of the miraculous?

Divorce statistics, abortion statistics, the growing disparity of wealth between income brackets, STD prevalence, dropout rate, standardized testing scores, prison populations, church closings, among other statistics, all seem to indicate the ‘downward spiral’ perception is not merely just a perception or p.o.v., i.e. “things” are indeed generally getting worse across the board. To be fair, would anyone like to promote that things are generally getting better across the board?

Any answers? Solutions? Plans? Strategies?

Answers like ‘well if everyone would just return to God’ are not realistic - that’s just not going to happen. You might as well say, ‘Well if everyone would face east and start walking the combined force of their steps would slow down the rotation of the earth.’ The ‘well if everyone would …’ answers are unrealistic, period. If the answer is* ‘everyone’ needs to do such-and-such’* then the situation is hopeless.

I’m at a loss to provide an answer, I can’t even guess.

However, this is the world in which we are going to have to - not only find Christ - but follow him. Maybe it’s a conceit on our part to think our time is the most difficult in which to follow His call to discipleship.

But, one good thing has occurred just now!!! - you have proven your charity by enduring my rant! Thanks for letting me rant.

Peter K
 
Well, I truely believe that Christ is the medicine for the spiritual ills of the time. I think even the atheist can agree that the situation is not going to be resolved with any less then a miracle.

I would suggest that we should do our part to be the best Christians we can be, and be the light of the earth. Perhaps our example will inspire other people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top