Evolution In The Classroom

[StAnastasia]

In the beginning (time) God Created the heavens (space) and the earth. (matter). Space, time and matter just recently verified by modern science, but there it is, all contained in the very first line.

The Hebrew cosmogonic claims are neither rmore nor less true than the cosmogonic claims of the Maori of New Zealand. In their story, Rangi and Papa, heaven and earth, lie together in fecund embrace. Their children, the creatures whom they beget, forcibly separate them so that they will have space in which to live. Father heaven misses mother earth so much that he constantly cries for her, leading humans to interpret rain as the tears of father heaven.

This is a beautiful etiological myth, as is the Hebrew one about why the serpent crawls on its belly. But we completely miss the theological point of cosmogonic stories if we look at them for proto-scientific statements, Science cannot be said to “catch up” to cosmogoniic myth.

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

The Hebrew cosmogonic claims are neither rmore nor less true than the cosmogonic claims of the Maori of New Zealand. In their story, Rangi and Papa, heaven and earth, lie together in fecund embrace. Their children, the creatures whom they beget, forcibly separate them so that they will have space in which to live. Father heaven misses mother earth so much that he constantly cries for her, leading humans to interpret rain as the tears of father heaven.

This is a beautiful etiological myth, as is the Hebrew one about why the serpent crawls on its belly. But we completely miss the theological point of cosmogonic stories if we look at them for proto-scientific statements, Science cannot be said to “catch up” to cosmogoniic myth.

StAnastasia

I don’t really care all that much about the other ones.

Uh - no we don’t. If you understand anything at all about Scripture you will note that it has layers of good stuff.

So your claim is the first line of Genesis has no truth? It is just myth as you say?

 

[reggieM]

God doesn’t get any less face time with respect to biology than He does in chemistry, physics, geology, history, or mathematics.

This is a very common argument used against certain criticisms of evolutionary theory. Personally, I think the responses to this argument are very common also, but perhaps you haven’t heard them, or else they were not convincing to you.

As above, it is claimed that evolutionary theory does not have more of a theological implication than mathematics, geology, chemistry or history does.

But what evolutionary theory seeks to prove is this point:

Atheistic-materialism is a sufficient philosophical foundation for understanding:

1. The development and diversity of all life
2. The origin and development of human beings

That is the challenge. Is it true?
Well, if it is not true – the follow-up question is necessary: “What aspect of the development of biological nature and/or the origin of human beings is it not possible for evolutionary theory to explain?”

I think most theistic evolutionists would answer “none” – in other words, they will concede that atheistic-evolution can explain the entire diversity of nature and the origin of human beings. There is nothing in biological nature that evolution cannot possibly explain, if it hasn’t explained it already.

In order to explain the origin of human beings, however, one would have to explain the human soul – which Catholics believe is an integral part of human life, non-reducible, non-evolved and which has a profound shaping effect on the development of human life. From that Catholic view, it would not be possible for evolution to fully explain the origin of human beings.

For atheistic scientists, of course, the question of the soul is easy for them – they simply deny that an immortal, spiritual soul exists. Human beings are composed entirely of material elements – so, evolution can possibly (most believe “will eventually”) explain the origin and development of human beings as products of evolutionary forces acting on matter.

With this said – it should be fairly easy to see the theological implications of evolutionary theory. Those implications are embedded into the theory and were a major part of Darwin’s thinking when he created the theory. His goal was to refute the idea that God was involved in the creation of nature. Darwin also rejected “guided” or “theistic” evolution because the idea that God selected mutations would contradict the notion of natural selection (or as Darwin said “make natural selection superfluous”).

Beyond that, evolutionary theory is widely used as a primary apologetical tool for atheism. It provides support for the idea that God does not exist. Richard Dawkins made that very clear:

Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist (Richard Dawkins, 1986. The Blind Watchmaker).

So, let’s notice this. Dawkins says that evolution supports atheism. The theory of gravity existed before Darwin. So did chemistry, history, mathematics and geology. But Dawkins states that it was Darwin who advanced atheistic belief.

There are many atheists like Dawkins who say the same thing. Just about every atheistic website in the world has some support for evolutionary theory. Strange isn’t it? – all of these atheists are interested in biology. We don’t see them all getting excited about the theory of gravity in this way.

Now we can see it here on CAF on a continual basis. Every discussion on evolution attracts atheists. They come on a Catholic site and want to show their expertise in molecular biology. They don’t want to talk about the Scriptural scholarship or their understanding of Catholic moral theology or ecclesiology. No – somehow they skip all of that and go directly to arguments about biology – that is, biology of the Darwinian kind.

Now perhaps someone could read everything I just posted here and claim that it’s just a coincidence that atheists are attracted to evolutionary theory – and evolution is no different than geology. The claims of evolution about the origin of human beings conflict with Catholic teaching. The same is not true of mathematics or chemistry or geology.

The arguments I posted are not new or original. I’ve seen others post the same kind of thing several times. I have not seen a coherent response to any of those arguments.

Instead, what I do see is the same question about evolution returning again and again. “Why do you consider evolution to be any different than sciences like chemistry or the theory of gravity”?

I don’t expect to convince you or anyone else – but at least it will be good for you to know that your question comes up a lot and there are many ways to refute the notion that evolutionary theory carries the same theological implications that geology does.

 

[edwest2]

To reggieM,

Excellent post. I would just like to add a few observations. The ‘just say yes to evolution’ crowd simply restates that phrase over and over again in hope of swaying a few more voters. I think their tactics should be laid out as well:

Misdirection: Typified by statements like, there are more important things going on, why discuss this? Or, evolution doesn’t matter, which, of course, does not explain the existence of numerous threads here. Or, we’ll find out after we die. God will tell us. Which, of course, does nothing to prevent the ‘just say yes to evoltion’ crowd from continuing to post.

Appeals to religious authority: As in, Your Pope(s) believe it so why don’t you?

Appeals to secular authority: 10,000 or more biologists believe it, so why don’t you?

False comparisons, like, It’s more certain than gravity.

To discredit: So, do you believe the earth is flat?

And self-defined interpretations of scripture: There is no evidence for this or that, so the Bible must be in error. Internet Biblical scholarship is about attempting to dicredit parts of the Bible, or, just as good, make those parts symbolic, and therefore, unreal.

Promoting textbook biology as the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Accusation: You are a literalist, fundamentalist, and anti-science.

And finally, Theistic Evolution: My favorite Where is the theistic in theistic evolution? Is it just the soul, which, as you pointed out, is not just some invisible thing that can be discarded, or did God actually do something? As far as I can tell, only dead chemicals did something, not God. To write “God started the process” or “God did It” is just another way of saying: “Look, just agree with us that it happened just like it says in tha biology textbook and we’ll leave you alone.” Nope. Not me.

As the Church teaches, the soul is not just some invisible throwawy thing, along with God, that atheists can easily ignore. The Church teaches it is much more than that. But, Catholics are told, you can’t mention God in the biology textbook. My response: Then don’t come here with your biology and attempt to do something science claims it cannot do: analyze the work of God based on provisional, likely to change next week, knowledge.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

To reggieM,

Excellent post. I would just like to add a few observations. The ‘just say yes to evolution’ crowd simply restates that phrase over and over again in hope of swaying a few more voters. I think their tactics should be laid out as well:

Misdirection: Typified by statements like, there are more important things going on, why discuss this? Or, evolution doesn’t matter, which, of course, does not explain the existence of numerous threads here. Or, we’ll find out after we die. God will tell us. Which, of course, does nothing to prevent the ‘just say yes to evoltion’ crowd from continuing to post.

Appeals to religious authority: As in, Your Pope(s) believe it so why don’t you?

Appeals to secular authority: 10,000 or more biologists believe it, so why don’t you?

False comparisons, like, It’s more certain than gravity.

To discredit: So, do you believe the earth is flat?

And self-defined interpretations of scripture: There is no evidence for this or that, so the Bible must be in error. Internet Biblical scholarship is about attempting to dicredit parts of the Bible, or, just as good, make those parts symbolic, and therefore, unreal.

Promoting textbook biology as the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Accusation: You are a literalist, fundamentalist, and anti-science.

And finally, Theistic Evolution: My favorite Where is the theistic in theistic evolution? Is it just the soul, which, as you pointed out, is not just some invisible thing that can be discarded, or did God actually do something? As far as I can tell, only dead chemicals did something, not God. To write “God started the process” or “God did It” is just another way of saying: “Look, just agree with us that it happened just like it says in tha biology textbook and we’ll leave you alone.” Nope. Not me.

As the Church teaches, the soul is not just some invisible throwawy thing, along with God, that atheists can easily ignore. The Church teaches it is much more than that. But, Catholics are told, you can’t mention God in the biology textbook. My response: Then don’t come here with your biology and attempt to do something science claims it cannot do: analyze the work of God based on provisional, likely to change next week, knowledge.

Peace,
Ed

That is a superb post, Ed – and a very useful catalogue of the responses we’ve heard. I can say that I’ve heard every one of those that you mention. Your idea on the continual repetition of slogans is very good also. That does have an effect – it’s like a political campaign. I am going to file this post for the future. Thanks again.

 

[tjm190]

Evolution is only used to support atheism because it contradicts a belief held by many theists- if most Christians believed each individual human being was ‘poofed’ into existence in the womb, the study of the human reproductive system would be used in the same manner.

 

[tjm190]

Appeals to religious authority: Generally used to combat the accusation that our faith is incompatible with evolution- a valid counter.

Appeals to secular authority: Generally used to counter the “well not EVERY scientist believes this” non-argument.

False comparisons, like, It’s more certain than gravity- Used to counter the “science changes it’s mind all the time, so I don’t need evidence to reject its conclusions” non-argument.

To discredit: If one were to base their world view (wrong term, I know) solely on scripture and disregard science, one would believe the world is flat no?

And self-defined interpretations of scripture: See above

Promoting textbook biology as the whole truth and nothing but the truth- Not exactly sure what’s meant here- it’s quite possible that textbooks contain errors.

Accusation: Both sides play the name game.

Theistic Evolution: Evolution only covers the biology of the human being- the soul is not a biological entity, and is therefore beyond study.

 

[hugh_miller]

Buffalo, you make the very concept of “revealed truth” just plain silly by insisting on a woodenly literal interpretation of it. There is no way in the world that “science will eventually catch up” to the “revealed truth” about a single Adamic pair, because scientifically it did not happen this way.

In fact, there is no way “science will eventually catch up” to any cosmogonic myth." You might was well expect science to catch up to the revealed truth of Indigenous American cosmogony that the world rests on the back of a turtle who sits on the backs of other turtles in a stack that reaches all the way down.

If you want scientific society to continue separating itself from an increasingly irrelevant and marginalized literalist Christianity, yours is the way to accomplish it. If you wish to foster dialogue between religious believers and the scientific community, there are other avenues to explore, such as the approaches taken at the conference in Rome last March.

StAnastasia

I’m unsure why you continue to castigate a literal belief in creation as expounded in Genesis 1-11 and supported by 30 or so of the church fathers and all the doctors of the church including St. Lawrence of Brindisi of the 16th century. Even the one dissenter, St. Augustine, was in favor of believing God could have created the earth in an instant instead of taking six literal six days but he bowed to scripture in that regard. Is it because your faith in the science of evolution has become a religion? If any of you are really curious about the science that supports Genesis 1-11 I suggest: "The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11 - A Compendium and Defense of Traditional Catholic Theology on Origins by Fr. Victor. P. Warkulwiz, M.S.S. who has a Ph. D. in Physics and in the field of philosophy, “Evolution and Other Fairy Tales” by the late Dr. Larry Azar, prof. emeritus of Iona College. There are also excellent shorter books by Jerry Keane of Australia and a fellow named Malone. By Nov. 6, 2009 there will be Proceedings of several conferences on critiquing of the hypothesis of evolution from a common ancestor by Catholic scientists.

You say: “If you want scientific society to continue separating itself from an increasingly irrelevant and marginalized literalist Christianity, yours is the way to accomplish it. If you wish to foster dialogue between religious believers and the scientific community, there are other avenues to explore, such as the approaches taken at the conference in Rome last March.”

Do you really want to dialogue? I find that hard to believe because you like *“the approaches taken at the conference in Rome last March.” *That was a very interesting conference as the organizers of the conference essentially censored out any dissent from their fellow scientists who support the hypothesis of evolution from a common ancestor over billions of years. A number of scientists in genetics, physics, sedimentology and C-14 dating of the fossils offered to give a critique of evolution as part of a dialogue but their request was totally ignored as if they did not exist. In your criticism of “Buffalo” you arrogantly claimed regarding a single Adamic pair, *“scientifically it did not happen this way.” *

Wow, that’s amazing, where’s the beef?? The two studies I’ve seen seem to contradict. When I gave my critique of 25 years of research in the field of radiocarbon dating etc. on October 8 on this thread it was said that I was either a liar or ignorant. That was repeated a second time by the same poster when I supplied Internet links and the abstract to my technical paper. I had shown: (1) that the 65-225 million years for dinosaur evolution does not exist based on radiocarbon dating of dinosaur bone collagen and bone bioapatite. These were in the same radiocarbon age range as for mammoths, saber tooth tigers and other megafauna. (2) that cat-scan data of the Delk human and dinosaur footprints together plus my own excavations of pristine fossil human footprints with dinosaur prints under tons of cretaceous rock supports those C-14 dates; (3) that “distinct” dinosaur depictions world-wide did indeed show that man and dinosaur lived at the same time. All of the above is 2000 times younger that what K/Ar and Ar/Ar dating of lava would claim. The message here is “date the fossils, not the rocks” to come closer to the actual age. CONTINUED>>>>

 

[liquidpele]

Evolution is only used to support atheism because it contradicts a belief held by many theists- if most Christians believed each individual human being was ‘poofed’ into existence in the womb, the study of the human reproductive system would be used in the same manner.

More accurately, it’s supported by many atheists because it is a process that doesn’t need to involve God or magic. Just like explanations for Gravity, hurricanes, and Aurora Borealis. That, and atheists are typically scientifically minded people, so it’s a bit natural for them.

Saying atheists support evolution is like saying christians support philanthropy. Well “duh”.

 

[hugh_miller]

continued from previous post>>>>

Did I get a dialogue? No way!. I received an arrogant and snide dismissal remark of being a liar or I guess just plain ignorant [fundamentalist is what they meant to say I suspect]. It was as if I was attacking that individual’s religion *.

Again here are some updated internet links to the above as I posted on October 9. Instead of posting the rebuttals by evolutionary high priests and priestesses why not study the web sites, ask questions and discuss? Let’s have some real fun

(1) Fossil human and dinosaur footprints together in Cretaceous strata allegedly 108 M years old: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXDBX99qePA&feature=related >> cat scan conformation of the co-existence of man and dinosaurs.

(2) Evidences for recent formation of the geologic column in 1000’s not millions of years including more RC dates for dinosaurs: www.earthage.com

***(3) Photos of fossils footprints and many other anomalies such as dinosaur depictions world-wide that reduces the theory of evolution to a mere hypothesis. **http://www.omniology.com/ModernHumanFootprints.html
and http://www.dinosaursandman.com/

 

[tjm190]

As I recall, it was rather easy to dismiss your credentials when the second law of thermodynamics was revealed to be one of your talking points- I may be getting my thoughts mixed up though.

 

[buffalo]

As I recall, it was rather easy to dismiss your credentials when the second law of thermodynamics was revealed to be one of your talking points- I may be getting my thoughts mixed up though.

The 2nd law may provide energy but information is what is needed.

 

[StAnastasia]

So your claim is the first line of Genesis has no truth? It is just myth as you say?

Your wording suggests that you understand neither what “myth” means nor what “truth” means.

 

[StAnastasia]

Do you really want to dialogue? I find that hard to believe because you like *“the approaches taken at the conference in Rome last March.” *That was a very interesting conference as the organizers of the conference essentially censored out any dissent from their fellow scientists who support the hypothesis of evolution from a common ancestor over billions of years.

Wrong! The Rome STOQ conference organizers did not censor dissent; they merely screened out scientific nonsense and hot air that would have prevented genuine dialogue from taking place. They wanted people who take both science and religion seriously, so that we could have productive conversations. It was a great conference. I’m thinking of attending a follow-up conference in November to be held on the campus of Notre Dame University.

StAnastasia

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

So your claim is change within species (adaptation) is the same as speciation?

YES, the evolutionary process is identical. Speciation is just a name for when adaptation has stopped two gene pools from being able to interbreed.

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

That whole “I’m more qualified than you are, and have convinced myself I understand issues better than you, so just stop questioning and believe me” argument, isn’t really going to convince anyone, unless they also believe in your objective authority and understanding to be greater than your own.

No, i was merely pointing out the person in question does not understand evolution, and it is therefore pointless to debate the matter with them. It is no coincidence that people have to earn degrees in subject before the are taken seriously within academia.

Is yet another assumption to heap on top of all the other assumptions which appear to be required for the exclusivist belief in evolution (as fact) - and your faith, despite your assertion would appear to be very strong

Why would belief in adaption require the whole of belief in evolutionary theory? It is a far less assumptious theory. It’s like saying because you find 2 rocks can sometimes land on top of each other, stone dwellings are natural formations. I think I’ve argued this already…

I didn’t say the whole evolutionary theory? I said micro and macro evolution are the same, and they are.

 

[buffalo]

Your wording suggests that you understand neither what “myth” means nor what “truth” means.

I have a clear understanding of both.

You refuse to answer the question?

Is it true that the first line of Genesis has been only recently confirmed by science? Yes or No

 

[buffalo]

Wrong! The Rome STOQ conference organizers did not censor dissent; they merely screened out scientific nonsense and hot air that would have prevented genuine dialogue from taking place. They wanted people who take both science and religion seriously, so that we could have productive conversations. It was a great conference. I’m thinking of attending a follow-up conference in November to be held on the campus of Notre Dame University.

StAnastasia

Hmmm? The PAS is mostly atheist. They take religion seriously? Seriously now.

 

[buffalo]

YES, the evolutionary process is identical. Speciation is just a name for when adaptation has stopped two gene pools from being able to interbreed.

Do all scientists agree with this definition of species?

How is adaptive isolation that leads to inability to breed the same as macroevolution? This is loss of function.

 

[rossum]

Do all scientists agree with this definition of species?

I am not sure about meteorologists or quantum mechanics, but most biologists accept that concept of species for sexually breeding species. There are different definitions for bacterial species, where a single individual splits into two.

How is adaptive isolation that leads to inability to breed the same as macroevolution? This is loss of function.

There is no loss of function required. The smallest change between species I am aware of is three mutations. One mutation changed the colour and the other two mutations changed the breeding season. In neither case was function lost. Both species have colour and both species have a breeding season. The different colours mean that they live in different habitats (camouflage) and the different breeding seasons means that they do not interbreed.

The two species are Chrysopa carnea and Chrysopa downesi.

rossum