Evolution: Catholic High School

[rossum]

The notion that science must accept only naturalistic-materialist explanations is not based on fact, but is a matter of faith.

No, it is a matter of definition. Science is defined as a search for natural explanations. It does not assert that there are only natural explanations and it does not assert that there is no knowledge outside science.

Science specialises in a particular area of knowledge; indeed part of its success is due to its specialising. By doing so it removes a number of distractions.

The presence of consciousness, self-reflection, memory, capacity for art, language and philosophy in the human person is not explained by evolution. Those who believe that only naturalistic processes account for all of these things are acting on faith, not on the facts given.

It is possible that science can give partial explanations for consciousness and memory (we know that some chemicals are involved in memory). All the rest are mostly outside science; do you classify linguistics as a science in the context you are discussing here?

All of the Catholic Darwinists here must accept that the human soul was a direct creation of God and not a product of natural evolution. So, I can see that even some evolutionists do not accept that human beings are entirely the result of naturalistic processes.

Correct. The soul is part of theology, not science. The evolution of our physical bodies is part of science, not theology.

rossum

 

[reggieM]

The evolution of our physical bodies is part of science, not theology.

That’s not a fact-based distinction. You’re making a definition about theology here and this is what many scientists do. The question of what theology is or isn’t is a faith-based matter.

Christian theology makes claims that are empirically-based. There are areas where theology and science overlap.

In classical Catholic theology, the soul of man includes consciousness, imagination, will and memory.

If these matters are reserved to theology then science would be forbidden from studying the origin and nature of such things.

 

[reggieM]

Methodological naturalism relies on faith.
The naturalistic assumption that all natural phenomena can be explained by natural causes,is taken on faith. It cannot be tested or demonstrated to be true.

See post 313.

That is correct. It’s a faith-based assumption that excludes the possibility that there are intelligent causes that can explain natural phenomena.

 

[reggieM]

All the rest are mostly outside science; do you classify linguistics as a science in the context you are discussing here?

I believe evolutionary theorists try to explain the origin and development of language. Whether topic is “outside science” or not depends on one’s defintion of the field of study. One point I am raising is that the definition is more fluid than some would insist. The definition of science is not absolute or unchanging.

If one can see that aspects of nature resemble things that we know are only caused by intelligence, then science should be able to infer that intelligence was involved in the development of nature. Where, for example, the functions of a cell are said to act “like computer software” (as Richard Dawkins states) and we know that information is only caused by intelligence – then that should be within the scope of scientific study.

An organization like the SETI institute searches for signs of intelligence in space.

 

[rossum]

That is correct. It’s a faith-based assumption that excludes the possibility that there are intelligent causes that can explain natural phenomena.

I disagree. We can see many intelligent causes, that is humans, that can explain some natural phenomena - for instance the existence of genetically engineered mice. Science has no reason to exclude intelligent causation per se. Science is however most reluctant to allow undetectable intelligent causes with unspecified powers acting in unspecified ways.

Give us enough information that we can, in principle, disprove the kind of intelligent design you are talking about. Then it can be considered science.

rossum

 

[Orogeny]

That is correct. It’s a faith-based assumption that excludes the possibility that there are intelligent causes that can explain natural phenomena.

Show that an intelligent entity is the cause for a natural phenomena and you will have acceptance in science.

I exclude the possibility that my late dog is the cause of any natural phenomena not because of my faith, but because there is no evidence that he was. Had I thought that he was the cause of a natural phenomena based on what I consider evidence, I would have to present the evidence to the scientific community and let them evaluate the evidence. Does it really exist? Does it actually mean what I claim it means? You know, just like any other claimed explanation of any natural phenomena, intelligence based or not.

Peace

Tim

 

[rossum]

If one can see that aspects of nature resemble things that we know are only caused by intelligence, then science should be able to infer that intelligence was involved in the development of nature.

One thing that scientists have learned is that mere resemblance is very far from being a proof. It might give us a clue as to the origin of something, but it might be misleading. The human brain is good at seeing patterns where there are none: shapes in clouds for example. Does the fact that we see a human face in a cloud imply that the cloud was designed? Sometimes our pattern-recognising brains see patterns where there are none.

Where, for example, the functions of a cell are said to act “like computer software” (as Richard Dawkins states) and we know that information is only caused by intelligence – then that should be within the scope of scientific study.

And we all know that everything Richard Dawkins says is true and correct and he can never be wrong!

If something is “like” a computer program that does not mean that it “is” a computer program. If you want to establish the presence of a programmer, you will need to explain who the programmer/s is/are, how the programmer/s acted, when the programmer/s acted and other detailed questions that the ID movement is currently reluctant to answer. For example, just the question of when the programmer/s acted is not answered by the ID movement. Did they act 6,000 years ago or 3.5 billion years ago?

An organization like the SETI institute searches for signs of intelligence in space.

Certainly, but it is not searching for intelligence directly, just for certain very simple radio signals that are highly unlikely to have been produced naturally. So far, despite Behe’s efforts, the ID movement has been unable to show anything that could not have been produced naturally.

Science has no problem with intelligence - we ourselves are an example. Science does have a problem with immaterial disembodied intelligence, since there has never been any evidence of such an intelligence. Science needs evidence.

rossum

 

[Gene_Church]

Don’t listen to me, Sungenis, or Fr. William Most on transitional fossils. We are not fossil experts. Go to your local public or university library, and take out these books by professional paleontologists, geologists, zoologists, etc. These are all available at my local U.S.F. library. Or these Catholic theologians, historians, philosophers, etc:

EVOLUTION, PHILOSOPHY, AND CHRISTIANITY (CATHOLICISM)

Creation and Evolution: A Conference with Pope Benedict XVI (Ignatius Press, 2008)
Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution and a Rational Faith by Cardinal Christoph Schonborn (Ignatius Press, 2007)
Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse in Dialogue (Fortress Press, 2007)
Perspectives on an Evolving Creation edited by Keith Miller (Eerdmans, 2003)
Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders: The Encounter Between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought by David N. Livingstone (Eerdmans, 1987)
The Post-Darwinian Controversies by James R. Moore (Cambridge Univ Press, 1981, 1979)

INVERTEBRATE EVOLUTION

An Introduction to the Invertebrates by Janet Moore (Cambridge Univ Press, 2006)
On the Origin of Phyla by James W. Valentine (Univ of Chicago Press, 2004)
Invertebrate Palaeontology and Evolution by E.N.K. Clarkson (Blackwell Science, 1998)

EVOLUTION OF ARTHROPODS (INCLUDING INSECTS)

Evolution of the Insects by Grimaldi and Engel (Cambridge Univ Press, 2005)
Crustacea and Arthropod Relationships edited by Koenemann and Jenner (Taylor & Francis, 2005)
Arthropod Fossils and Phylogeny edited by Gregory D. Edgecombe (Columbia Univ Press, 1998)

VERTEBRATE EVOLUTION

Vertebrate Paleontology by Michael J. Benton (Wiley-Blackwell, 2004, 3rd edition)
Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution by Robert L. Carroll (Cambridge Univ Press, 1997)
Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution by Robert L. Carroll (Freeman, 1988)

EVOLUTION OF TETRAPODS (FOUR-LEGGED “AMPHIBIANS”)

Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body by Neil Shubin (Pantheon, 2008)
Gaining Ground: the origin and evolution of tetrapods by Jennifer A. Clack (Indiana Univ Press, 2002)
At the Water’s Edge: Fish with Fingers, Whales with Legs, and How Life Came Ashore but Then Went Back to Sea by Carl Zimmer (Free Press, 1999)

EVOLUTION OF MAMMALS (INCLUDING WHALES)

The Rise of Placental Mammals: origins and relationships of the Major Extant Clades edited by Rose and Archibald (Johns Hopkins Univ Press, 2005)
The Origin and Evolution of Mammals by T.S. Kemp (Oxford Univ Press, 2005)
Beasts of Eden: walking whales, dawn horses, and other enigmas of mammal evolution by David Rains Wallace (Univ of CA Press, 2004)
Mammals from the Age of Dinosaurs: origins, evolution, and structure by Kielan-Jaworowska, Cifelli, and Luo (Columbia Univ Press, 2004)
Horns, Tusks, and Flippers: the evolution of hoofed mammals by Prothero and Schoch (Johns Hopkins Univ Press, 2002)
The Emergence of Whales: evolutionary patterns in the origin of Cetacea edited by J.G.M. Thewissen (Plenum Press, 1998)
Fossil Horses: Systematics, Paleobiology, and Evolution of the Family Equidae by Bruce J. MacFadden (Cambridge Univ Press, 1994)

EVOLUTION OF BIRDS

The Inner Bird: anatomy and evolution by Gary W. Kaiser (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2007)
Dinosaurs of the Air : the evolution and loss of flight in dinosaurs and birds by Gregory S. Paul (Johns Hopkins Univ Press, 2002)
Taking Wing : Archaeopteryx and the evolution of bird flight by Pat Shipman (Simon & Schuster, 1998)
The Rise of Birds : 225 million years of evolution by Sankar Chatterjee (Johns Hopkins Univ Press, 1997)
The Origin and Evolution of Birds by Alan Feduccia (Yale Univ Press, 1996)

HUMAN EVOLUTION

The First Human: The Race to Discover our Earliest Ancestors by Ann Gibbons (Doubleday, 2006)
Bones, Stones, and Molecules: “Out of Africa” and Human Origins by Cameron and Groves (Elsevier, 2004)
The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey by Spencer Wells (Random House paperback, 2003)
The Human Fossil Record (volume 1, forthcoming in 4 volumes) by Schwartz and Tattersall (John Wiley and Sons, 2002)
Extinct Humans by Tattersall and Schwartz (Westview Press / Perseus Books, 2000)
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution edited by Jones, Martin, Pilbeam (Cambridge Univ Press, 1992)

Prothero (Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters [2007]) updates us on the fossil record and evolution in the 20 years since Carroll (Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution [1988]):

“But the past 20 years * have produced some of the greatest discoveries of all, including incredible fossils that show how whales, manatees, and seals evolved from land mammals, where elephants, horses, and rhinos come from, and how the first backboned animals evolved. We now have an amazing diversity of fossil humans, including specimens that show that we walked upright on two feet almost 7 million years ago, long before we acquired large brains. In addition to all this fossil evidence, we have new evidence from molecules as well that enables us to decipher the details of the family tree of life as never before…The fossil record is an amazing testimony to the power of evolution, with documentation of evolutionary transitions that Darwin could have only dreamed about…The fossil record is now one of the strongest lines of evidence for evolution, completely reversing its subordinate status only 150 years ago. Instead of the embarrassingly poor record that Darwin faced in 1859, we now have an embarrassment of riches.” (Prothero [2007], page xix-xx)

OR you can let Barbarian take over another creation-evolution thread, he is much more expert than myself.

Phil P*

I have no doubt that you are sincere, but I read through the website you cited earlier, and my problem with what I read is that statements, such as “we have an embarrassment of riches,” is conclusory, and provides no real evidence. And ultimately, the transitional fossil record becomes “this species looks close to this species, that looks close to this species.” While there may certainly be more fossil records to look at, the attempts outlined by Darwin are unchanged–the link is not there.

 

[Gene_Church]

Technically there really aren’t any “weak spots” in evolution at the level it should be taught in high school. Hammering out subtle details is PhD-level stuff.

I think that if someone with a non-technical background such as yourself tried to make technical criticisms of evolution you could be cause a drop in your credibility.

Mildly condescending. And I respectfully disagree.

 

[anthony022071]

You have yet to define life coherently.

Life is essentially spirit,which is extrinsic to the natural world,and therefore supernatural. The natural state of being alive is individualized life. Spirit is what causes an interdependent working unity of nucleic acids and proteins in a cell.

 

[PhilVaz]

Gene << I have no doubt that you are sincere, but I read through the website you cited earlier, and my problem with what I read is that statements, such as “we have an embarrassment of riches,” is conclusory, and provides no real evidence. And ultimately, the transitional fossil record becomes “this species looks close to this species, that looks close to this species.” While there may certainly be more fossil records to look at, the attempts outlined by Darwin are unchanged–the link is not there. >>

I’m sorry, they are there. The page is not even finished. Besides the hundreds of transitionals that are listed there already, I’m adding a couple dozen more as icing on the cake, and making sure they are all fully up to date.

So you are a paleontologist? You have read these books by professional paleontologists and other scientists which provide evidence in great detail of the evolution of the invertebrates, the insects, the tetrapods, the birds, the mammals, the whales, and human evolution? You have published your findings in SCIENCE and NATURE that no transitional fossils exist? I’d like to see those articles. Please give me some references, other than “I don’t think those are transitional.” ALL of them? Interesting opinion despite all the evidence to the contrary. I’ll go further than you and say I don’t think you are sincere, unless you’ve actually read the book below.

bringyou.to/apologetics/ProtheroFossils.jpg

p.s. I appreciate Catholic radio very much, but that certainly doesn’t make you knowledgeable about fossils. For that we must go to the experts (i.e. professional paleontologists).

Phil P

 

[The_Barbarian]

Originally Posted by steveandersen
*Technically there really aren’t any “weak spots” in evolution at the level it should be taught in high school. Hammering out subtle details is PhD-level stuff.

I think that if someone with a non-technical background such as yourself tried to make technical criticisms of evolution you could be cause a drop in your credibility. *

Mildly condescending. And I respectfully disagree.

It’s possible for someone to become familiar with the technical issues and to make a reasonable critique of the theory. I know a body shop owner who can do that, who has very little formal training in biology.

But if you haven’t put in the time to learn before you make such a critique you will probably make yourself look foolish.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I have no doubt that you are sincere, but I read through the website you cited earlier, and my problem with what I read is that statements, such as “we have an embarrassment of riches,” is conclusory, and provides no real evidence. And ultimately, the transitional fossil record becomes “this species looks close to this species, that looks close to this species.”

Most notably, many of these transitionals were predicted by evolutionary theory, long before they were discovered. And note also that we don’t see transitionals between groups that are not evolutionarily connected. And note also that these transitions are abundantly confirmed by DNA evidence, which shows that they are related. Even conserved molecules like cytochrome c and hemoglobin show these phylogenies to a high degree of precision.

Such confirmation from numerous independent sources of data is compelling. It is far from merely “these fossils look alike.” Moreover, even the fossil evidence clearly shows the difference between analogous and homologous organs.

This is why it’s so important to learn about the evidence and general biology before attempting to understand evolutionary theory.

Would you like to see some important transitionals, and the reasons we know they are transitional?

 

[PhilVaz]

Barbarian << Would you like to see some important transitionals, and the reasons we know they are transitional? >>

And the answer is NO, because there are no transitional fossils. :doh2:

bringyou.to/apologetics/SISANIM.gif

Phil P

 

[anthony022071]

I’m sorry, they are there. The page is not even finished. Besides the hundreds of transitionals that are listed there already, I’m adding a couple dozen more as icing on the cake, and making sure they are all fully up to date.

First someone needs to establish that they are really transitional species,and the only way to do that is to establish that is to trace the reproductive history or compatibility of those species. And that can’t be done by comparing bone structures. The bones of dead species say little or nothing about whether they were related by reproduction.

See post 210.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4063515#post4063515

 

[Orogeny]

First someone needs to establish that they are really transitional species,and the only way to do that is to establish that is to trace the reproductive history or compatibility of those species. And that can’t be done by comparing bone structures. The bones of dead species say little or nothing about whether they were related by reproduction.

See post 210.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4063515#post4063515

So your position is that there may be transitional species but we will never know?

Peace

Tim

 

[PhilVaz]

anthony << First someone needs to establish that they are really transitional species,and the only way to do that is to establish that is to trace the reproductive history or compatibility of those species. And that can’t be done by comparing bone structures. The bones of dead species say little or nothing about whether they were related by reproduction. >>

Read the 2007 book by Prothero. That’s my main source. I hope to add various data from the book to my article as it has the most up to date and accurate information.

Prothero goes through all the main transitional fossils, why they are transitional, how paleontologists know they are transitional, why they correspond to and are consistent with what we know about evolution and related species, etc. It is a very very convincing book and shows why creationist objections are inaccurate, incomplete, or plain dishonest. It is also written by an expert in the field who has actually DUG UP many of these fossils and examined them himself.

Phil P

 

[Isambard]

Life is essentially spirit,which is extrinsic to the natural world,and therefore supernatural.

Life can be measured, and tested for. Therefore, no, it is not extrinsic to the natural world and definately NOT supernatural.

The natural state of being alive is individualized life.

Which means what exactly?

Spirit is what causes an interdependent working unity of nucleic acids and proteins in a cell.

No, thats chemistry and my video clearly demonstrated.

 

[cpayne]

Because they are animated, living things are described as possessing an *anima *or living principle of some type, which Christians call a soul. This may be a faith statement or not; I don’t know. But what do scientists call that which converts a chemical or physical process into a unified, growing, mobile, food-ingesting thing? I know the term “soul” would be unpopular. So what is it? What is the name for the principle of life which makes something a “living” thing?

(And whatever the name is, is its existence a matter of faith or of empirical science?)

Just in case anyone forgot I asked the question.

 

[anthony022071]

Life can be measured, and tested for. Therefore, no, it is not extrinsic to the natural world and definately NOT supernatural.

Life cannot be measured or tested in itself,which is why science cannot find its origin. It is from outside of nature.
Science can’t even define what life is.

Which means what exactly?

By individualized life I mean a creature’s state of being alive. Creatures are individuals,and they have individual lives,derived from the universal life. In the same way,our individual human natures are parts of the universal human nature,and are derived from out first ancestors.

No, thats chemistry and my video clearly demonstrated.

The video was pretty shallow and glib. The discovery of chemical causes does not make divine providence unnecessary.
And in the case of the origin of life,the supposed chemical causes of the origin of cells are hypothetical and untestable.