Evolution: Catholic High School

[Isambard]

Life cannot be measured or tested in itself,

Yes it can. Unlike you, scientists tend to have a coherent, falsifiable method of determining what life is/isnt.

which is why science cannot find its origin. It is from outside of nature.

Except science has found its origin. The how is still being worked worked out which is different.

Science can’t even define what life is.

Except it has.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions

By individualized life I mean a creature’s state of being alive.

Using a synonym to define a word is incorrect.

Creatures are individuals,and they have individual lives,derived from the universal life.

Individual lives? I take it you don’t know what parasitic or symbiotic organisms are. Aside from sounding awfully Platonic, your statement tells us nothing.

In the same way,our individual human natures are parts of the universal human nature,and are derived from out first ancestors.

Universal human nature derived from our first ancestors? Do define what this “Universal human nature” and how it ties in to our first ancestors (Australopithicas).

The video was pretty shallow and glib. The discovery of chemical causes does not make divine providence unnecessary.

Actually it does.

And in the case of the origin of life,the supposed chemical causes of the origin of cells are hypothetical and untestable.

Im guessing you watched a different video. It explained and cited studies where it was tested. Now refute the highlighted points in the video, or do your own research.

 

[anthony022071]

Yes it can. Unlike you, scientists tend to have a coherent, falsifiable method of determining what life is/isnt.

Scientists can’t test an invisible substance. They can test if something is in a state of being alive,but they can’t study what it is that

Except science has found its origin. The how is still being worked worked out which is different.

Molecules and chemicals are not the origin of life. A corpse has the same physical elements that it did when it was alive,but it does not have life.

Except it has.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.

Regulation would be one of the functions of life,not the substance of life. The question is what is doing the regulating.

Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

Again,this is a matter of a function of life. What is doing the organizing?

Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

Again,this is a function of living creatures. What is causing metabolism?

Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.

Again,this a function of an organism. What is causing growth to happen?

Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism’s heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.

Adaptation happens with non-living matter as well as living organisms.

Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.

Even non-living particles of energy respond to stimuli. They respond to the stimultion of other particles. But they are not sensory.

Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

Reproduction is an ability of a living organism. What causes reproduction to happen?

 

[anthony022071]

Using a synonym to define a word is incorrect.

It’s a fact that each living creature is an individual,and has an individual life.

Individual lives? I take it you don’t know what parasitic or symbiotic organisms are. Aside from sounding awfully Platonic, your statement tells us nothing.

An organism which lives off of another is an individual life.

Universal human nature derived from our first ancestors? Do define what this “Universal human nature” and how it ties in to our first ancestors (Australopithicas).

Universal human nature is the nature common to all humans.
Our individual human natures are derived from out first ancestors,who contained in themselves all of the human qualities,or humanity,that the rest of humanity would inherit from them. Each individual man is individualized from “man” as a whole,or mankind,and all of mankind is derived from Adam,which means “man”.

Actually it does.

No,the discovery of chemical causes does not make divine providence unnecessary;there is a difference in quality between chemical processes and the state of being alive.

The very existence of natural elements and their design,and the order that occurs in the natural world,requires a Creator.

 

[The_Barbarian]

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?

There are human-created self-replicating chemical systems that do that much. They are more alive than viruses, but less alive than cells.

Do you think they have souls? What about viruses? How about individual cells?

HeLa cells are parasitic organisms evolved from human cells that became capable of independent life and at one time were a serious pest in labs, infecting tissue cultures. Do they have souls?

 

[Isambard]

It’s a fact that each living creature is an individual,and has an individual life.

Individual in terms of what?

An organism which lives off of another is an individual life.

Again, individual in terms of what? What about organisms that only survive in colonies while acting as collectives?

Universal human nature is the nature common to all humans.
Our individual human natures are derived from out first ancestors,who contained in themselves all of the human qualities,or humanity,that the rest of humanity would inherit from them. Each individual man is individualized from “man” as a whole,or mankind,and all of mankind is derived from Adam,which means “man”.

You just repeated what youve said before. I want you to outline this “universal human nature”.

No,the discovery of chemical causes does not make divine providence unnecessary;there is a difference in quality between chemical processes and the state of being alive.

There really isnt as its chemical processes that keep you alive.

he very existence of natural elements and their design,and the order that occurs in the natural world,requires a Creator.

What step in the process mentioned in the vieo requires a creator?

 

[anthony022071]

Individual in terms of what?

In terms of being distinct from another creature,and in being a member of a species.

Again, individual in terms of what? What about organisms that only survive in colonies while acting as collectives?

If anything is recognized as a distinct organism,it is an individual.

You just repeated what youve said before. I want you to outline this “universal human nature”.

It is the same as the human nature of particular people: being made in God’s image,consciousness,will,moral sense,liability to strong emotions,liability to sin.

newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm

There really isnt as its chemical processes that keep you alive.

The chemical processes of an organism are themselves sustained for organic life by something other then themselves.

What step in the process mentioned in the vieo requires a creator?

The process mentioned in the video is assumed to lead to cells.
I don’t agree with that assumption. Life in nature does not require a process for its coming into existence,it requires the spirit of God. If biotic life were just chemical process,there would be no point in distinguishing it from “pre-biotic” chemical processes. Evidently,materialistic science recognizes a difference between mere chemical processes and the state called life.

 

[reggieM]

…liability to sin.

Since sin is a evil which is oriented to the goodness of God, I believe it would be impossible for atheistic-evolutionism to accept that there is sin.

This is one of the worst effects of Darwinism, as I see it. Science can never fully understand the human person while denying sin and its counterpart (moral & spiritual perfection).

Through God’s revelation we learn about what is Good (beyond the natural law that we already have in us).

 

[Isambard]

It is the same as the human nature of particular people: being made in God’s image,consciousness,will,moral sense,liability to strong emotions,liability to sin.

newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm

Hmm. Your artical seems questionable. It claims that its twin substance (or something like that) is a scientific theory yet offers no sources or citations aside from philosophy.

That said, you said Universal Human Nature. Moral sense is very much a cultural construct, so no universality there. Liability to strong emotions is another non-universal as people with certain types of brain damage or with schizoid/anti-social personalities also deviate from the norm. Your artical emphasizes Man as rational, but again, thats not universal given that children, people with certain emotional disorders, elderly suffering from senility, and people with severe retardation don’t fit that criteria.

Now unless you want to brand all the people categorized above as sub-human, then I think its safe to say your “Universal Human Nature” is very much a myth.

As per liability to sin, thats really a matter of faith which again, is more a cultural thing.

The chemical processes of an organism are themselves sustained for organic life by something other then themselves.

I’d love to see some evidence for this statement

The process mentioned in the video is assumed to lead to cells.
I don’t agree with that assumption. Life in nature does not require a process for its coming into existence,it requires the spirit of God. If biotic life were just chemical process,there would be no point in distinguishing it from “pre-biotic” chemical processes.

There is if one uses a coherent definition of life. You know, like the one scientists use?

Evidently,materialistic science recognizes a difference between mere chemical processes and the state called life.

Yep, and none are an appeal to magic like you like to claim.

 

[Isambard]

Since sin is a evil which is oriented to the goodness of God, I believe it would be impossible for atheistic-evolutionism to accept that there is sin.

Ugg. Non-sequiters are never pretty.

**This is one of the worst effects of Darwinism, **as I see it. Science can never fully understand the human person while denying sin and its counterpart (moral & spiritual perfection).

Umm no. The reason why I think the concept of sin is bogus, is because I dont believe in God. ToE is silent on the matter as sin cant be measured or tested for. Get it right and stop trying to dishonestly conflate atheism with evolution.

Through God’s revelation we learn about what is Good (beyond the natural law that we already have in us).

Really? God’s revelation seems an awful lot like the position of Thrasymachus in The Republic. That is, the rule of the biggest tyrant. But I suppose this point is really off-topic, so Ill drop it.

 

[reggieM]

The reason why I think the concept of sin is bogus, is because I dont believe in God.

The liability to sin is a part of the human person, as explained in the previous post. Your atheism, therefore, causes you to have a different understanding of human nature.

This idea may not be caused by evolutionary theory, but it is supported by it. Evolutionary-materialism attempts to explain the entire human being without needing to reference God.

For you (and I would think for most atheists) this would mean that the concept of sin is “bogus”.

You cannot commit a sin because you believe that sin does not exist.

With this, you can’t really have any “fear of God” (in the Scriptural sense of that term).

Again, it appears to me that evolutionary-theory and your own personal atheism are very closely aligned.

 

[Isambard]

The liability to sin is a part of the human person, as explained in the previous post. Your atheism, therefore, causes you to have a different understanding of human nature.

Yes indeed.

This idea may not be caused by evolutionary theory, but it is supported by it. Evolutionary-materialism attempts to explain the entire human being without needing to reference God.

Your point is a non-sequiter. Simply put, evolution has nothing to do with atheism as its silent on the issue of the supernatural and deities. There could be a God(s) who directed the entire process.

For you (and I would think for most atheists) this would mean that the concept of sin is “bogus”.

You cannot commit a sin because you believe that sin does not exist.

With this, you can’t really have any “fear of God” (in the Scriptural sense of that term).

Again, it appears to me that evolutionary-theory and your own personal atheism are very closely aligned.

I was an atheist before I understood evolution. Simply put, I feel I have done wrong when I have unintentionally hurt someone, not because a tyrant somewhere disapproves of my actions because of his own arbitrary reasons.

 

[The_Barbarian]

This is one of the worst effects of Darwinism, as I see it.

This is a common misconception.

Science can never fully understand the human person

Certainly true.

while denying sin and its counterpart (moral & spiritual perfection).

Certainly untrue.

 

[anthony022071]

Hmm. Your artical seems questionable. It claims that its twin substance (or something like that) is a scientific theory yet offers no sources or citations aside from philosophy.

There is a science to Aristotelian and Scholastic philosophy.
And the natural sciences were once called natural philosophy or experimental philosophy.

That said, you said Universal Human Nature. Moral sense is very much a cultural construct, so no universality there.

Humans of all cultures have a basic moral sense latent within them,despite the different manifestations of it,which is why all cultures can be taught morality and reformed. And since cultures are made up of humans,saying that morality is a cultural construct
leads back to the admission that the human race has a moral sense.

Liability to strong emotions is another non-universal as people with certain types of brain damage or with schizoid/anti-social personalities also deviate from the norm.

The norm,as you admit,is that people are liable to strong emotions. People who are mentally damaged so that they are emotionally numb are damaged in regard to the universal human nature.

People with schizoid or anti-social personalities often do have strong emotions.

Your artical emphasizes Man as rational, but again, thats not universal given that children, people with certain emotional disorders, elderly suffering from senility, and people with severe retardation don’t fit that criteria.

Children show signs of developing rationality at a very early age.
The fact that we recognize mental disorders,senility,and retardation means that we recognize that people ought to have rationality.

Now unless you want to brand all the people categorized above as sub-human, then I think its safe to say your “Universal Human Nature” is very much a myth.

No,it just means that they are mentally undeveloped or damaged or weakened. If we did not recognize a universal,then we would not recognize that they deviated from a recognized norm.

As per liability to sin, thats really a matter of faith which again, is more a cultural thing.

In other words,a human thing.

I’d love to see some evidence for this statement

The fact that scientists are looking for something in the chemical processes of biotic life that is not found in non-living chemical processes is evidence enough.

There is if one uses a coherent definition of life. You know, like the one scientists use?

Apparently,there are several ones,and they describe functions and attributes of organisms,rather than life itself.

See post 360.

Yep, and none are an appeal to magic like you like to claim.

Science plays a magic trick when it speculates about a chemical shuffle of hypothetical hypercycles and protobionts and claims that living cells come out of it.

 

[reggieM]

Certainly true [that science can never fully understand the human person].

On what basis do you find certainty on this? What aspects of the human person can science never know about?

 

[reggieM]

Your point is a non-sequiter. Simply put, evolution has nothing to do with atheism as its silent on the issue of the supernatural and deities. There could be a God(s) who directed the entire process.

Darwin’s purpose was to show that the entire process could be explained without reference to God or gods of any kind. If it is possible that God directed the process, as you affirm here, how would that be different from a process that was not directed by God?

Simply put, I feel I have done wrong when I have unintentionally hurt someone, not because a tyrant somewhere disapproves of my actions because of his own arbitrary reasons.

It doesn’t seem logical that you feel that you’ve “done wrong” if you unintentionally hurt someone. First, why would you blame yourself for something that was not your fault?
I can’t see what standard you could be using to judge that you “did wrong” by hurting someone. Do you believe that you should never hurt anyone for any reason, or that it is possible not to hurt people unintentionally?

In evolutionary-materialistic terms, there doesn’t seem to be any reason to consider hurting someone as a “wrong”. I’m glad you have a conscience for that kind of thing, but it doesn’t seem consistent with naturalism.

Also, why do you think the God of the Catholic religion is a “tyrant” who acts in an arbitrary manner?

 

[Isambard]

Darwin’s purpose was to show that the entire process could be explained without reference to God or gods of any kind.

Darwin’s purpose was to explain the origin of species using evidence. Not to discredit God.

If it is possible that God directed the process, as you affirm here, how would that be different from a process that was not directed by God?

No idea. Ask the resident theistic evolutionists

It doesn’t seem logical that you feel that you’ve “done wrong” if you unintentionally hurt someone. First, why would you blame yourself for something that was not your fault?

Empathy. I dont like being hurt unintentionally, so I assume noone else does either.

I can’t see what standard you could be using to judge that you “did wrong” by hurting someone. Do you believe that you should never hurt anyone for any reason, or that it is possible not to hurt people unintentionally?

Im actually a moral nihilist, so I dont have any system. If its unintentional, then I make amends. If intentional, then the point is moot, though I dont go out of my way.

In evolutionary-materialistic terms, there doesn’t seem to be any reason to consider hurting someone as a “wrong”. I’m glad you have a conscience for that kind of thing, but it doesn’t seem consistent with naturalism.

Its actually very consistant with ToE as emathy is evolutionary beneficial for social animals such as ourselves. You also see similar behaviour among great apes, elephants, dolphins etc etc. Simply put, it keeps the group cohesive.

Also, why do you think the God of the Catholic religion is a “tyrant” who acts in an arbitrary manner?

No idea. Perhaps being eternal has made him grumpy?
lol

 

[Isambard]

There is a science to Aristotelian and Scholastic philosophy.
And the natural sciences were once called natural philosophy or experimental philosophy.

Thats nice, but its still deceptive to call it a scientific theory as those words have a specific meaning

Humans of all cultures have a basic moral sense latent within them,despite the different manifestations of it,which is why all cultures can be taught morality and reformed. And since cultures are made up of humans,saying that morality is a cultural construct
leads back to the admission that the human race has a moral sense.

You said there was a universal moral sense. Meaning that all these varied moral sense should be the same. They are not.

The norm,as you admit,is that people are liable to strong emotions. People who are mentally damaged so that they are emotionally numb are damaged in regard to the universal human nature.

People with schizoid or anti-social personalities often do have strong emotions.

Some do, some dont. Again, not universal. If someone is universal, it cant be undermined regardless of accidents.

Children show signs of developing rationality at a very early age.
The fact that we recognize mental disorders,senility,and retardation means that we recognize that people ought to have rationality.

Again, not universal.

No,it just means that they are mentally undeveloped or damaged or weakened. If we did not recognize a universal,then we would not recognize that they deviated from a recognized norm.

If there is deviation, then it isnt a universal now is it? And again, are you saying what I outlined is sub-human?

The fact that scientists are looking for something in the chemical processes of biotic life that is not found in non-living chemical processes is evidence enough.

Cite some studies

Apparently,there are several ones,and they describe functions and attributes of organisms,rather than life itself.

See post 360.

They are actually pretty down pat. Only you seem to believe that life can mean whatever one wishes.

Science plays a magic trick when it speculates about a chemical shuffle of hypothetical hypercycles and protobionts and claims that living cells come out of it.

A trick backed by evidence. All you’ve done is voice your objection and offer nothing but theological philosopy.

 

[reggieM]

No idea. Ask the resident theistic evolutionists

You claimed that it was possible that God directed the entire process but you have no idea how that would be different from an undirected process. I’ll conclude that you have “no idea” about your own opinion on this matter

Empathy. I dont like being hurt unintentionally, so I assume noone else does either.

Ok, you changed the topic since you initially said that you had done something “wrong” and now you’re saying that it’s empathy.

Im actually a moral nihilist, so I dont have any system. If its unintentional, then I make amends. If intentional, then the point is moot, though I dont go out of my way.

I think the intial point stands that you don’t believe that there is such thing as a sin, and as a result you cannot commit a sin. I wonder how you make amends to people you hurt unintentionally also. For example, how do you know if you’ve hurt anyone on CAF with your many posts here – some very harsh and filled with ridicule and contempt for others. I’d guess that you are selective with your judgements on how you hurt people.

No idea. Perhaps being eternal has made him grumpy?
lol

Ok, I assumed that you would have at least some idea about why you hold that opinion or that you were capable of taking the topic seriously enough to explain what you believe. As above, you have “no idea” about your own opinion on this matter.

 

[Isambard]

You claimed that it was possible that God directed the entire process but you have no idea how that would be different from an undirected process. I’ll conclude that you have “no idea” about your own opinion on this matter

I said ToE didn’t comment on it either way. As per my response, you asked what would the difference be between God-directed evolution and non-God related evolution, I answered I have no idea.

Ok, you changed the topic since you initially said that you had done something “wrong” and now you’re saying that it’s empathy.

I implied empathy when I said “I did wrong if I unintentionally hurt someone”.

I think the intial point stands that you don’t believe that there is such thing as a sin, and as a result you cannot commit a sin.

Yep. Sin is nothing more than displeasing God. No God= no sin.

I wonder how you make amends to people you hurt unintentionally also.

Typically an apology. Other measures is its severe.

For example, how do you know if you’ve hurt anyone on CAF with your many posts here – some very harsh and filled with ridicule and contempt for others. I’d guess that you are selective with your judgements on how you hurt people.

There is a difference between accidently knocking someone over due to carelessness, and someone being offended because I pick apart their arguement.

Ok, I assumed that you would have at least some idea about why you hold that opinion or that you were capable of taking the topic seriously enough to explain what you believe. As above, you have “no idea” about your own opinion on this matter.

I can explain it. You simply asked the question wrong and I decided to be cheeky.

 

[anthony022071]

You said there was a universal moral sense. Meaning that all these varied moral sense should be the same. They are not.

That isn’t what I mean by universal moral sense. Human moral sense is a universal in that it is inherent in the composition of all human beings,along with our genetic composition. The variety of individual moral natures are particular manifestations of fallen human nature.

Some do, some dont. Again, not universal. If someone is universal, it cant be undermined regardless of accidents.

It can be diversified by accidents and by free will.

Again, not universal.

If we recognize rationality as being normative and proper to human beings,then it must be a universal attribute inherent in mankind. Rationality is the standard. People are judged to have mental disorders in light of the common rationality expected of humans. Severe mental disorders are a matter of damage to the mind,not just variety.

If there is deviation, then it isnt a universal now is it?

Universals and individual divergence are not mutally exclusive. All humans have color,but not all have the same color.

And again, are you saying what I outlined is sub-human?

No. Sub-rational perhaps.

Cite some studies

You can find out what I mean yourself. Scientists make a distinction between chemical processes and biotic life,so they must be looking for something other than the chemical processes they say lead to biotic life. If there is nothing other,then all is process.

They are actually pretty down pat. Only you seem to believe that life can mean whatever one wishes.

I go by the traditional definitions found in dictionaries.

A trick backed by evidence. All you’ve done is voice your objection and offer nothing but theological philosopy.

The evidence offered does not back up the idea that living organisms developed from chemical processes. It only describes chemical processes,some of them hypothetical. The leap from non-living chemical processes to life in cells is unjustified.