Evolution is contradictory?

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Apart from one or two tinfoil hat wearing outliers, all those who denigrate evolution are Christians.

I wonder if we could draw any conclusions from that?

There you go again. Witty but not very wise. You do know that numbering 2.2 billion people worldwide, Christians make up the world’s largest religion by a margin of one billion. So, duh … yes, those who oppose evolution are most likely Christian.

One or two dissenters? I think not. Best to broaden your reading; apparently you’ve fallen behind quite a bit.

https://www.amazon.com/What-Darwin-Wrong-Jerry-Fodor/dp/031268066X

[P]hilosopher Jerry Fodor of Rutgers University and the cognitive scientist Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini of the University of Arizona in Tucson. In What Darwin Got Wrong (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2010), these self-described atheists argue that the theory of natural selection is “fatally flawed.”

You think they are arguing against evolution? Good grief.

It is written by a philosopher and a cognitive science and doesn’t attempt in the slightest to refute evolution. What they are arguing is that natural selection is not, in their non-specialised opinions, as prevalent in driving evolution as is normally acepted. From a Guardian review:

‘Its authors do not, of course, deny that this kind of classical natural selection happens. But they argue strongly that there is now no reason to privilege it over a crowd of other possible causes.’

Didn’t you read anything about what they have written? Or did you just get drawn in by a title that included Darwin’s name and thought: ‘Aha! Atheists arguing against evolution!’

Keep this in mind. Darwin is not and has never has been the be all and end all of evolution. He got the ball rolling is all. A huge achievment and one that marks a huge change in how we view the world. But ‘Darwinism’ is not a synonym for ‘evolution’.

 

[Bradskii]

Richca:

Appearances! For some interpreters of the fossil record, more complex life forms appear to have evolved from less complex life forms. Similarly, from an observer on earth, the sun appears to move across the sky from east to west, the moon and the whole night sky too. A mirage in the desert appears to be water. The red shift of distant galaxies appears to be that distant galaxies are moving away from us. The bread and wine of the eucharist appear to be just bread and wine. Appearances!

And like Cruciferi said, what about these huge gaps between these transitional creatures ?

Oh my Lord. I think if someone showed you a picture of a tall dark man and his slightly shorter fair headed son, you’d ask the same dumb question.

 

[o_mlly]

You think they are arguing against evolution? Good grief.
…
Keep this in mind. Darwin is not and has never has been the be all and end all of evolution. He got the ball rolling is all. A huge achievment and one that marks a huge change in how we view the world. But ‘Darwinism’ is not a synonym for ‘evolution’.

We’ve seen this Kabuki dance before:

"Oh, you’re talking about “Darwin”? No, no, I’m talking about “Natural Selection”! Oh, you’re talking about “Natural Selection”! No, no, I’m talking about “Evolution”.

Continuing the discussion from Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?:

This thread should have been titled: Evolution Is Nonsense - Who Agrees With Me?

 

[Aloysium]

Carbon and helium and the rest of the elementary table are just parts of a materialistic illusion. So they didn’t evolve from first principles.

You lost me.

There is a reality beyond that which is illuminated by materialism, of beings that are whole in themselves while being composed of more basic components and all the while being participants in a greater form of being. We are composed of matter, structured by our spirit, that which makes us one person, a unity of body-mind, existing in relation to what is other to ourselves. Necessary to the expression in time and space, of our triune nature (knower-knowing-known) which connects us and can (in love) bring us to oneness with everything, are atoms. Carbon is especially important because its tetrahedral electrostatic configuration allows for a myriad of molecular combinations that go into the making of proteins, sugars, fats, nucleic acids and so on. These permit the expression of the principles that constitute life, the physical structure and physiology that allows for the organism’s relationship with its environment and others of its own kind, its maintenance, growth, reproduction and behavioural characteristics. The materialistic illusion comes about as a result of a negation which denies the reality of the hierarchy of created things in themselves, their existence grounded in the ultimate, eternal reality that is Existence itself, revealed to us as the Triune Godhead.

 

[Techno2000]

Oh my Lord. I think if someone showed you a picture of a tall dark man and his slightly shorter fair headed son, you’d ask the same dumb question.

You got to be pretty gullible believe such a thing as the evolution of the Whale. It would take thousands of so-called transitional forms of both male and female to be produced by random mutations.The point is these artist renderings are put out there to brainwash kids and adults into believing that evolution can happen in 5 easy steps.

 

[Techno2000]

hierarchy of created things

Right, it was created from the top down … not bottom up.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

You think they are arguing against evolution? Good grief.
…
Keep this in mind. Darwin is not and has never has been the be all and end all of evolution. He got the ball rolling is all. A huge achievment and one that marks a huge change in how we view the world. But ‘Darwinism’ is not a synonym for ‘evolution’.

We’ve seen this Kabuki dance before:

"Oh, you’re talking about “Darwin”? No, no, I’m talking about “Natural Selection”! Oh, you’re talking about “Natural Selection”! No, no, I’m talking about “Evolution”.

Continuing the discussion from Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?:

This thread should have been titled: Evolution Is Nonsense - Who Agrees With Me?

You seem to be confused about the terms people are using.

Evolution is the theory that there are changes within organisms that allow greater diversity and hence greater chances of survival (the technical definition you can look up yourself). The theory existed a very long time before Darwin.

Natural selection is a proposal by Darwin that suggests that natural selection is the driving force behind evolution. He was partly right. So natural selection does not equal evolution. It is just part of the process.

‘Darwinism’ means ‘that which Darwin proposed’. It is generally used by people who don’t have the foggiest idea about what he actually proposed.

What those two guys were writing about was the suggestion that natural selection is not the most important facet of evolution. Good luck to them. Nobody discounts well written, well researched and comprehensive scientific treaties on any matter. They have been read by people who really know what they are talking about and their views have generally been dismissed.

They don’t support any suggestion that you tried to make that here were a couple of dyed in the wool atheists railing against evolution itself. You couldn’t have been further from the mark. Although you might have saved yourself some embarrassment if you had investigated what they had written and could differentiate the terms as noted above.

 

[o_mlly]

Evolution is the theory that there are changes within organisms that allow greater diversity and hence greater chances of survival (the technical definition you can look up yourself). The theory existed a very long time before Darwin.

Well done. The Kabuki “walk-back” move ending with a near perfect fan flutter.

Type “evolution” into your search engine and count the hits that do not reference “Darwin.” Not too many, eh? Who would/could argue against your flattened definition of “evolution” above?

With a claim to be an atheist, we were hoping for a somewhat more strident claim. But I suppose “wasting” one’s time on Catholic Answers has positive outcomes for just about everyone.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Carbon and helium and the rest of the elementary table are just parts of a materialistic illusion. So they didn’t evolve from first principles.

You lost me.

There is a reality beyond that which is illuminated by materialism, of beings that are whole in themselves while being composed of more basic components and all the while being participants in a greater form of being. We are composed of matter, structured by our spirit, that which makes us one person, a unity of body-mind, existing in relation to what is other to ourselves. Necessary to the expression in time and space, of our triune nature (knower-knowing-known) which connects us and can (in love) bring us to oneness with everything, are atoms. Carbon is especially important because its tetrahedral electrostatic configuration allows for a myriad of molecular combinations that go into the making of proteins, sugars, fats, nucleic acids and so on. These permit the expression of the principles that constitute life, the physical structure and physiology that allows for the organism’s relationship with its environment and others of its own kind, its maintenance, growth, reproduction and behavioural characteristics. The materialistic illusion comes about as a result of a negation which denies the reality of the hierarchy of created things in themselves, their existence grounded in the ultimate, eternal reality that is Existence itself, revealed to us as the Triune Godhead.

You’re never going to get all that on a sandwich board. I’d stick with ‘Everything Is A Materialistic Illusion!’ Much snappier. You could even do bumper stickers.

 

[Bradskii]

Type “evolution” into your search engine and count the hits that do not reference “Darwin.” Not too many, eh?

Why gee. You’re right. Who would have thought that the man who proposed that one of the main driving forces behind evolution was natural selection would be associated with the subject! Whodda thunk.

And who would have thought that people think that natural selection and evolution are the same thing! Ah yes. You do.

You probably aren’t aware that the first issues of On The origin Of Species didn’t even contain the word ‘evolution’.

Please read this: Explore The English Language | Lexico. I’m hoping that it should prevent any more errors on your part.

 

[o_mlly]

You probably aren’t aware that the first issues of On The origin Of Species didn’t even contain the word ‘evolution’.

Very clever – first issues. Did you not read the latest issue? Darwin published it in 1896. ??

I know it sounds neat to try and separate Charles from his theory of evolution but you just can’t do that. Even Charles didn’t try. From the 1896 publication of The Origin of Species … .

If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.

I formerly spoke to very many naturalists on the subject of evolution, and never once met with any sympathetic agreement. It is probable that some did then believe in evolution, but they were either silent, or expressed themselves so ambiguously that it was not easy to understand their meaning. Now things are wholly changed, and almost every naturalist admits the great principle of evolution.

 

[Bradskii]

I know it sounds neat to try and separate Charles from his theory of evolution…

Simply not credible…

There’s nothing I can add.

 

[Aloysium]

You’re never going to get all that on a sandwich board. I’d stick with ‘Everything Is A Materialistic Illusion!’ Much snappier. You could even do bumper stickers.

That’s not the message.

More like:

• Jesus is the Way, the Truth, the Life
• Wake from your Slumber
• Through Him all Things were Made

These get to the central point.

The assertion that everything would be considered a materialistic illusion, is off track.
The reality of everything that is other to the self is known through the intellect.
Materialism is a conceptual framework utilized by some persons to make sense of the world.
Although everything you believe may be a materialistic illusion, everything is not.
In fact, every thing has an existence in itself and as a participant in something greater…

 

[o_mlly]

Someone I know is pushing a book by a FSSP priest, Chad Ripperger, in which Ripperger claims evolution is incompatible with Catholicism and is intrinsically incoherent. As both a Catholic and scientist, I find this hard to accept. He appeals to something called first causes, of which I admittedly know next to nothing, but tries to philosophize his audience into disregarding the scientific validity of the theory. Is there any clarity to be found here?

The science of evolution is compatible with Catholic teaching. The good priest argues against atheistic evolution philosophy whose claims go far beyond the science. The atheistic philosophers selectively ignore metaphysical first principles to reach their predetermined conclusions. That’s just bad philosophy.

Fortunately, after much hemming and hawing, it turns out the friendly atheists on this forum do not subscribe to their own philosophers skewed approach to evolution. But stay tuned. Their song may change.

 

[Bradskii]

Fortunately, after much hemming and hawing…

There is and has never been any hemming and hawing by atheists in this thread or others or indeed, as far as I am aware, anywhere within this forum.

Whether God is/was involved in evolution and if so to what extent, has been, is now and will always be completely irrelevant to the theory of evolution and the facts that support it.

Anyone in this forum who denies evolution is invariably a Christian (mostly of the fundamentalist stripe). You can guarantee it. But anyone who points out the error of their ways can be any type of Christian, an agnostic or an atheist. If the debate is purely about evolution then there would be no way for you to tell.

As I said earlier, that fact in itself speaks volumes.

 

[o_mlly]

Whether God is/was involved in evolution and if so to what extent, has been, is now and will always be completely irrelevant to the theory of evolution and the facts that support it.

Very good.

Anyone in this forum who denies evolution is invariably a Christian (mostly of the fundamentalist stripe). You can guarantee it.

Restated: Anyone in this forum who claims evolution theory supports atheism is invariably just a bad philosopher. You can guarantee it.

 

[Bradskii]

Anyone in this forum who claims evolution theory supports atheism is invariably just a bad philosopher. You can guarantee it.

Indeed they most certainly are. And the only ones you will find attempting to do that are Christians.

 

[o_mlly]

Anyone in this forum who claims evolution theory supports atheism is invariably just a bad philosopher. You can guarantee it.

Fact check. Do all atheists and non-Christians agree that evolution theory does not support atheism?

 

[rossum]

Fact check. Do all atheists and non-Christians agree that evolution theory does not support atheism?

Evolution neither supports nor contradicts atheism.

It does contradict woodenly literal interpretations of Genesis, but a great deal of modern science does that: cosmology, astronomy, geology, physics etc. In that case, evolution is just one among many.

Some fundamentalist literalist Christians take that contradiction of a literal Genesis to mean that evolution contradicts Christianity as a whole. They are incorrect.

$0.02

rossum

 

[Bradskii]

Nothing supports atheism. It is a lack of belief.

Some Christians and atheists believe that evolution disproves God. They are the less well educated, ignorant and unintelligent members of both groups.

What atheists generally argue against is a literal reading of Genesis which ignores the facts of the matter. They point out that ID is creationism wearing a funny hat and a false nose and is trying to sneak in without being noticed.

Evolution is the best explanation that we have for the way the world is at this moment. You can include or exclude God in that explanation as you see fit. It changes nothing.

My $0.02.