Evolution book

[PhilVaz]

GaryS << Irrelevant. What I said was that Darwinism is a myth. I made no statement about the age of the Universe. I believe that it is much younger but I could be wrong about that. Much more research, freed from the fascist thumb of the evolutionary mafia that controls scientific research these days, needs to be done. >>

I was showing you and everyone precisely what Behe does accept.

He accepts the ancient age of the earth and universe. You don’t apparently.
He accepts macroevolution (common descent). You don’t.
He accepts human evolution. You don’t.

He suggests the “design” can be pushed back to the beginning of the universe. He alludes to that in Darwin’s Black Box but this comes out clearer in some of his later articles. Basically, God could have set it up at the very beginning, and the rest DARWINISM (macroevolution, with natural selection and random mutation) takes over. That is basically my position, that is also Kenneth Miller’s position. Behe has no problem with that position as a Catholic as well.

GaryS << I was aware that Behe does not believe in a recent creation. I didn’t say that he did. I said he rejected Darwinism which he does. Maybe you should read the posts you respond to before you respond. Gary >>

By “rejecting Darwinism” Behe: affirms an old earth/universe, accepts macroevolution, accepts natural selection, accepts random mutation, and he has no problem pushing “design” back to the beginning (i.e. “front-loading” design).

GaryS << Behe is quite specific in saying that the various biochemical processes which take place in living organisms - photosynthesis, blood clotting, etc. - could not have evolved because they are much to complex and they either have to appear fully functional or they would not be selected for. >>

Yes, he was quite specific in Darwin’s Black Box, and that’s where he’s wrong; that’s where he was answered by Ken Miller in Finding Darwin’s God; and that’s where he was thoroughly demolished under cross-examination at the Dover Trial. I suggest you read the transcripts, and the Judge’s final decision. They are all available online.

And Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed starts today (April 18, 2008). Everyone should buy a copy of Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial (2007) instead, far more accurate.

Phil P

 

[masterjedi747]

He suggests the “design” can be pushed back to the beginning of the universe. He alludes to that in Darwin’s Black Box but this comes out clearer in some of his later articles. Basically, God could have set it up at the very beginning, and the rest DARWINISM (macroevolution, with natural selection and random mutation) takes over. That is basically my position, that is also Kenneth Miller’s position. Behe has no problem with that position as a Catholic as well.

Just for clarification… we as Catholics would support that claim with the added note that God is not the “watchmaker God” of the Deists. His Divine Providence is always present and active in His creation, even if only in subtle ways – working in and through natural selection, not apart from it; intimately guiding His creation, and not merely sitting back and watching it go. (Right?)

 

[ricmat]

Just for clarification… we as Catholics would support that claim with the added note that God is not the “watchmaker God” of the Deists. His Divine Providence is always present and active in His creation, even if only in subtle ways – working in and through natural selection, not apart from it; intimately guiding His creation, and not merely sitting back and watching it go. (Right?)

That explanation sounds good to me!

 

[The_Barbarian]

Just for clarification… we as Catholics would support that claim with the added note that God is not the “watchmaker God” of the Deists.

Right. “Watchmaker” suggests that God designed the universe, and then walked away from it. He created it, and remains completely involved in every aspect of it.

 

[garysibio]

PhilVaz;

Again, all I am saying about Behe is that he shows that Darwinism is impossible. I have no idea how old the universe is. Science has been in the grip of an intellectual fascism since Darwin that it is impossible to truly investigate anything in this area without prejudice. If you don’t buy the party line, you get squashed.

Gary

 

[The_Barbarian]

Again, all I am saying about Behe is that he shows that Darwinism is impossible.

Since Darwin’s predictions have been validated by direct observation, you might as well claim that gravity is impossible.

I have no idea how old the universe is.

Or anything about “Darwinism” for that matter.

Science has been in the grip of an intellectual fascism since Darwin that it is impossible to truly investigate anything in this area without prejudice.

If you were right, then Darwin’s theory would never have been modified by new evidence. But it’s been modified repeatedly. Don’t you think you’d be more effective against science, if you knew what it is?

 

[PhilVaz]

GaryB << Behe is that he shows that Darwinism is impossible >>

Yes, Behe thinks Darwinism is impossible for about 1% of things at the molecular, microscopic level. For the large things, not only is Darwinism possible, he accepts it fully: invertebrates become vertebrates, fish become tetrapods, tetrapods become small reptiles to giant dinosaurs, reptiles become mammals and birds of all sizes, and ape-like creatures become humans with large brains who walk upright. Behe accepts all of that. To repeat, he has no problem with macroevolution, natural selection, random mutation, for the large things.

As for deism, I am aware these are Catholic dogma:

God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)
The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)
The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)
God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)
God has created a good world. (De Fide)
The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)
God alone created the world. (De Fide)
God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)
The first man was created by God. (De Fide)
Man consists of two essential parts – a material body and a spiritual soul. (De Fide)
Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De Fide)
Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De Fide)
The donum immortalitatis, i.e. the divine gift of bodily immortality of our first parents. (De Fide)
Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De Fide)
Through the original sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De Fide)
Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De Fide)

From the article I compiled: Catholic Dogma and Teaching on Creation

Phil P

 

[garysibio]

GaryB << Behe is that he shows that Darwinism is impossible >>

Yes, Behe thinks Darwinism is impossible for about 1% of things at the molecular, microscopic level. For the large things, not only is Darwinism possible, he accepts it fully: invertebrates become vertebrates, fish become tetrapods, tetrapods become small reptiles to giant dinosaurs, reptiles become mammals and birds of all sizes, and ape-like creatures become humans with large brains who walk upright. Behe accepts all of that. To repeat, he has no problem with macroevolution, natural selection, random mutation, for the large things.

As long as Darwinism cannot account for anything, it must be ruled out. Darwinism can also not answer the question of how we got life from non-life. Darwinism is also mathematically impossible. The odds on just the right mutation showing up at just the right time are so astronomical that it takes more faith to believe in Darwinism than a six-day creation.

What you believe concerning the doctrines of the Catholic Church is irrelevant because Darwinism allows for no God. Darwinism is strictly random mutations and natural selection. There is no divine intervention. It is a materialistic viewpoint incompatible with any version of Christianity including Catholicism.

Gary

 

[abu_kamoon]

The Darwinist.Evolution Hoax demands exceedingly long periods of time: millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions and billions of years. Science is based on observation. Does any intelligent person actually believe that these fissils could be hundreds of millions, or billions of years old?

Look at what happens to our monuments after a few hundred or a few thousand years. Are we to believe that organic compounds can remain frozen in time without cheimcally breaking down for millions of years? I don’t.

Look at natural phenomena like the Grand Canyon. Evolutionary theory states that this was caused by erosion over thousands or millions of years. Evolution is based on Uniformitarinisn, rather than Catastrophism.

Take a look at photographs of areas around rivers from a hundred years ago, and then look at the same area today. I have a book showing scenes of the Gettysburg Battlefield right after the battle, and photographs of the same areas today. In many of the scenes, only a boulder is recognizeable in the modern picture. The river has meanderd far from its original course.

After a few hundred years, a river may change course, dry up, or become swamp. Evoultion demands that it continues, unchanged. But that’s not the way things work.

All around us we see organic and inorganic objects breaking down chemically. Certainly, on rare occaisions a plant or animal can become fossilized. Again, this depends on it being rapidly buried before decomposing (not the gradual buildup of layers Evolutionists envision). And even stone breaks down, only to be reformed into new mineral deposits. Nothing lasts forever (or even several million years).

Men believe in Evolution because they want to, not because the evidence is overwhelming.

 

[rossum]

As long as Darwinism cannot account for anything, it must be ruled out. Darwinism can also not answer the question of how we got life from non-life.

Hey, I like that argument. How about “As long as The Bible cannot account for anything, it must be ruled out. The Bible can also not answer the question of the name of Seth’s wife.” Does your argument look as good phrased like that? No, I thought not.

Darwin called his book “On the Origin of Species”. It explains why we have so many different species of life here on earth. It deliberately did not attempt to explain the origin of life. Darwin gave a different explanation for that. You have read Darwin I presume so no doubt you are aware of the closing words of the sixth edition:There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

I would also remind you that creationists have no explanation for the origin of life. Be careful, this question is not as easy as it might appear. The answer you will probably think of first is wrong; it is not an explanation for the origin of life.

Darwinism is also mathematically impossible. The odds on just the right mutation showing up at just the right time are so astronomical that it takes more faith to believe in Darwinism than a six-day creation.

Two points. Firstly if you are going to make a mathematical argument, “mathematically impossible”, then you have to show your model and the working that led to your conclusion. If you have a faulty model or if your calculation is wrong then you result is worthless - GIGO. Secondly, mutations do not have to appear “at just the right time”, the Luria-Delbrück experiment shows that mutations can arise before they are needed, and persist in the population as neutral mutations until the environment changes and they become beneficial.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The Darwinist.Evolution Hoax demands exceedingly long periods of time: millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions and billions of years. Science is based on observation. Does any intelligent person actually believe that these fissils could be hundreds of millions, or billions of years old?

Do you have anything to offer apart from contentless rhetoric and personal opinion? How about providing some evidence that radiometric dating methods are faulty. Without evidence all you are left with is your personal opinion, which carries no weight in science.

Look at what happens to our monuments after a few hundred or a few thousand years. Are we to believe that organic compounds can remain frozen in time without cheimcally breaking down for millions of years? I don’t.

You need to learn a bit of chemistry here. Calcium carbonate (limestone) is an organic compound. Are you saying that limestone rocks cannot last for millions of years?

After a few hundred years, a river may change course, dry up, or become swamp. Evoultion demands that it continues, unchanged. But that’s not the way things work.

The Grand Canyon is not alive, it is not a biological organism and hence is nothing to do with evolution. Geology is in the next room along the corridor. Some rivers change course frequently. Some rivers change course very little. The Tiber still flows through Rome after more than 2,500 years. The Colorado River is more like the Tiber than the river at Gettysburg.

Nothing lasts forever

Agreed.

(or even several million years).

The molecules of which you and I are made have lasted considerably longer than that. Rocks, and fossils which are made of it, can also last that long.

Men believe in Evolution because they want to, not because the evidence is overwhelming.

I acept evolution because it has the evidence. All you have been able to provide is an example of Morton’s Demon.

rossum

 

[garysibio]

The Darwinist.Evolution Hoax demands exceedingly long periods of time: millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions and billions of years. Science is based on observation. Does any intelligent person actually believe that these fissils could be hundreds of millions, or billions of years old?

Look at what happens to our monuments after a few hundred or a few thousand years. Are we to believe that organic compounds can remain frozen in time without cheimcally breaking down for millions of years? I don’t.

Look at natural phenomena like the Grand Canyon. Evolutionary theory states that this was caused by erosion over thousands or millions of years. Evolution is based on Uniformitarinisn, rather than Catastrophism.

Take a look at photographs of areas around rivers from a hundred years ago, and then look at the same area today. I have a book showing scenes of the Gettysburg Battlefield right after the battle, and photographs of the same areas today. In many of the scenes, only a boulder is recognizeable in the modern picture. The river has meanderd far from its original course.

After a few hundred years, a river may change course, dry up, or become swamp. Evoultion demands that it continues, unchanged. But that’s not the way things work.

All around us we see organic and inorganic objects breaking down chemically. Certainly, on rare occaisions a plant or animal can become fossilized. Again, this depends on it being rapidly buried before decomposing (not the gradual buildup of layers Evolutionists envision). And even stone breaks down, only to be reformed into new mineral deposits. Nothing lasts forever (or even several million years).

Men believe in Evolution because they want to, not because the evidence is overwhelming.

I would chssaange your last statement to read: Men believe in evolution because they don’t want to believe in a God to whom they are accountable.

Gary

 

[drpmjhess]

I would chssaange your last statement to read: Men believe in evolution because they don’t want to believe in a God to whom they are accountable.Gary

Poppycock. People accept evolution it because it is true, and God because God is Truth.

 

[rossum]

I would chssaange your last statement to read: Men believe in evolution because they don’t want to believe in a God to whom they are accountable.

Utter rubbish. I accept evolution and I strongly believe that I am accountable for all my actions. There is no “forgiveness of sins” in Buddhism; if I do anything wrong then I will suffer for it. My acceptance of science is based on the overwhelming evidence it has to back it up and is nothing to do with my religious beliefs.

rossum

 

[ricmat]

I would chssaange your last statement to read: Men believe in evolution because they don’t want to believe in a God to whom they are accountable.

Gary

I would further refine it to say that there are many atheists who (by definition) don’t believe in God. And the current theory of evolution gives them a scientific framework on which to continue believing that God does not exist. Yes, I know, science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, it takes a philosophical leap of faith to take that last step. But science could provide a lot of persuasive evidence which could take people up to that next to last step.

Read Wisdom 13.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I would further refine it to say that there are many atheists who (by definition) don’t believe in God.

Ya think? So how many atheists do you think believe in God?

And the current theory of evolution gives them a scientific framework on which to continue believing that God does not exist. Yes, I know, science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, it takes a philosophical leap of faith to take that last step. But science could provide a lot of persuasive evidence which could take people up to that next to last step.

Science can’t. But nature can. Science is a method that won’t do it for you. But as Paul says in Romans, you can see from His creation that He is.

He’s already given you everything you need. You don’t need any more help. And science can’t give it to you.

 

[ricmat]

Ya think? So how many atheists do you think believe in God?

Science can’t. But nature can. Science is a method that won’t do it for you. But as Paul says in Romans, you can see from His creation that He is.

He’s already given you everything you need. You don’t need any more help. And science can’t give it to you.

Read Wisdom 13.

 

[ricmat]

Ya think? So how many atheists do you think believe in God?

As I said, none, and there are a lot of them who rely on science to maintain their non belief in God.

Science can’t. But nature can. Science is a method that won’t do it for you.

For many atheists, science is their god. If their god leads them closer to God, then perhaps they’ll take the last leap of philosophical faith and believe in him.

ID looks for signs of a designing intelligence in nature, so you’re right, this could bring people to God.

He’s already given you everything you need. You don’t need any more help. And science can’t give it to you.

It may not help you come to God Barbarian, but it does help some people come to the next to the last step, from which they can make the final leap of faith.

Read Wisdom 13.

 

[abu_kamoon]

Poppycock. People accept evolution it because it is true, and God because God is Truth.

If God is truth, He would not write a fictional account of creation in the Bible, which is His Word.

Since God is truth, His word is truth. Evolution is a lie.

 

[drpmjhess]

If God is truth, He would not write a fictional account of creation in the Bible, which is His Word. Since God is truth, His word is truth. Evolution is a lie.

Don’t ever take a theology course in a seminary – you would be shocked and disillusioned if you think Catholic exegesis is literal.