"Evolution is Just a Theory!" Um, no

[wanerious]

Brad:

This concept (the theory of everything) was a pursuit by Hawkins and others to solve the problem of evolution not being possible from a singularity.

Really, since Maxwell in the 1870s was able to unify electricity and magnetism (and, consequently, light) in one theoretical framework, thousands of physicists have been working on unification before Hawking. After Einstein’s unification of inertial mass and gravitational mass, he spent the last 36 years of his life working on unification. Hawking is only a fairly recent member of a large group.

This was not a guess as much as it was a solution to support underlying problems in a theory. Rather than assume that God got the process going through creation, they felt there had to be some other way for this to have happened - that’s how string theory got going - to prove that all 4 forces came into being simultaneously - to know “the mind of God”. Well, if we can know the mind of God, there is no need for a God, is there?

Perhaps. But what would you have physicists do? Science cannot address any supernatural claims, so physicists assume that there must be natural explanations for every natural phenomenon. They must posit some physical reason and mechanism for creation and see if it could possibly be consistent with the current body of physical and mathematical knowledge.

I would say the problem is they don’t spend enought time contradicting as you say - instead they try to “fix” the contradictions with more speculation.

Believe me, as a veteran of many large scientific conferences, they spend plenty of time contradicting. My astronomer colleagues love ripping each other to shreds in peer-reviewed papers, questioning talks given by others, and generally bickering about other’s results even during social gatherings. You call it “speculation”, we call it “hypothesis”. Whatever hypothesis is proposed is subject to an intense crucible, hopefully to have a strong and tempered theory emerge some time later after perhaps many iterations.

 

[wanerious]

Brad:

If we evolved - say, our brains - from a purposeless process of natural selection of evolving matter - then we have no business saying that humans beings are above any other animal because they evolved the same way.

Physically, the human body is not really above any other brute except that our brains are more complex. We Christians believe, though, that we are imbued with a supernatural soul that sets us apart. There can easily be evolution of the human body, but not the soul.

Hitler used evolutionary theory as an excuse for his behavior.

I wouldn’t count on the wisdom of Hitler for authoritative guidance on the correctness of a theory. He was (often) wrong.

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

They will be.

So out of nothing came everything? Rigorous science is going to factually prove this?

Which parts of the Bible do we exclude?

Where in evolutionary theory is the part about something coming from nothing?

Peace

Tim

 

[wanerious]

Dog-Sized Mammal Dined on Dinosaurs

This is a great one! You see how we must continually refine science in the light of new findings.

 

[wanerious]

Brad:

So out of nothing came everything? Rigorous science is going to factually prove this?

Evolutionary biology has nothing to say about the origin of the initial energy field in the Big Bang. Is this what you’re talking about? Of course science never proves anything. Right now, there are really no good hypotheses about the origin of the Big Bang. It is a mystery. Perhaps someday one hypothesis will have some supporting evidence in its favor, and it will seem reasonable.

Which parts of the Bible do we exclude?

I’m not following. Why do you want to exclude certain parts?

 

[Brad]

wanerious:

Really, since Maxwell in the 1870s was able to unify electricity and magnetism (and, consequently, light) in one theoretical framework, thousands of physicists have been working on unification before Hawking. After Einstein’s unification of inertial mass and gravitational mass, he spent the last 36 years of his life working on unification. Hawking is only a fairly recent member of a large group.

Understood - but it was Hawking amongst others that made the notion of “No God” popular.

wanerious:

Perhaps. But what would you have physicists do? Science cannot address any supernatural claims, so physicists assume that there must be natural explanations for every natural phenomenon.

That is EXACTLY the problem. There isn’t natural explanations for everything that happens in nature. Science works so much better in conjunction with this understanding, not in opposition to it. There are many medical miracles documented with no scientific biological explanation. Many doctors say “that’s ok” and move on - they don’t stop everything and pursue a naturalistic explanation because they know doing so would be somewhat silly - no matter what explanation they came up with.

wanerious:

Believe me, as a veteran of many large scientific conferences, they spend plenty of time contradicting. My astronomer colleagues love ripping each other to shreds in peer-reviewed papers, questioning talks given by others, and generally bickering about other’s results even during social gatherings. You call it “speculation”, we call it “hypothesis”. Whatever hypothesis is proposed is subject to an intense crucible, hopefully to have a strong and tempered theory emerge some time later after perhaps many iterations.

Understood. But don’t you suppose that the general acceptance of the hypotheses behind evolution are influenced by a culture that makes it popular to view the Church and the Bible as archaic and most of the things they say are wrong to be cool?

 

[buffalo]

wanerious:

Perhaps. But what would you have physicists do? Science cannot address any supernatural claims, so physicists assume that there must be natural explanations for every natural phenomenon. They must posit some physical reason and mechanism for creation and see if it could possibly be consistent with the current body of physical and mathematical knowledge.

Realize that by its very definition science shows a limited and restricted view of everything. I would expect scienctists to understand this and think outside the box as to other explanations. I understand this would run counter to their training.

But it would seem to me to ignore the pursuit of supernatural explanations is not fulfilling scientists own investigative curiousity. It is self limiting.

The Pope has proposed a collaborative effort because science and religion both have something to say about the truth. Using all our senses and abilities will ultimately improve our total understanding.

 

[Brad]

wanerious:

Physically, the human body is not really above any other brute except that our brains are more complex. We Christians believe, though, that we are imbued with a supernatural soul that sets us apart. There can easily be evolution of the human body, but not the soul.

Our bodies have much more significance than that - especially as it pertains to how we use them - everything we do with them has a spiritual impact. Some of the problems of disconnecting soul from body are summed up in questions from my post you didn’t reference here. I believe separation of soul and body was an early heresy in the Church.

wanerious:

I wouldn’t count on the wisdom of Hitler for authoritative guidance on the correctness of a theory. He was (often) wrong.

I wouldn’t either. That’s the point. He operated from very flawed philosophies. But it wasn’t just him. He was informed by scientists regularly that helped shape his belief system and give him reasons to do what he did.

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

Where in evolutionary theory is the part about something coming from nothing?

Peace

Tim

In one of the prior posts in reference to the judge ruling against favoritism of a group of parents that wanted their children to maintain their religous belief in the origins of life, it was stated that science was moving strongly in the direction of showing that life origins began through evolution. What was the starting material? Where did it come from? If not from God, then it came from nothing.

Now, you believe in God so you must think this material came from Him, I presume - but other teachers and scientists do not or think that God had no role in creating anything.

 

[Brad]

wanerious:

Evolutionary biology has nothing to say about the origin of the initial energy field in the Big Bang. Is this what you’re talking about? Of course science never proves anything. Right now, there are really no good hypotheses about the origin of the Big Bang. It is a mystery. Perhaps someday one hypothesis will have some supporting evidence in its favor, and it will seem reasonable.

How about “God kicked it off?”

 

[Brad]

wanerious:

I’m not following. Why do you want to exclude certain parts?

If we have to exclude the section regarding God creating the first man and then the first woman based on excluding the supernatural as possible, then we can exclude all the supernatural from the Bible can’t we?

I don’t think anything should be excluded. I have yet to see anything scientific or otherwise that disproves anything in the Bible.

 

[wanerious]

Brad:

That is EXACTLY the problem. There isn’t natural explanations for everything that happens in nature. Science works so much better in conjunction with this understanding, not in opposition to it.

Here’s where I disagree 100%. You and I are free to posit supernatural causes for anything we want, sort of a God of the Gaps of our present knowledge. But this is completely outside a scientific framework. Science cannot work at all with any sort of supernatural understanding or component. How is it to be tested? What predictions of future behavior can we make? Can it be quantified? Scientists, when doing science, must assume that there are natural explanations for everything that happens.

There are many medical miracles documented with no scientific biological explanation. Many doctors say “that’s ok” and move on - they don’t stop everything and pursue a naturalistic explanation because they know doing so would be somewhat silly - no matter what explanation they came up with.

Then they are obviously not “doing science” by ignoring the possible natural explanations. That’s ok, it’s just not science. I know of only a few such stories, and the main reason they’re ignored is because they are either purely anecdotal and/or proceed from faulty and imprecise observations. Any well-observed and repeated “miracles” would certainly be subject to tests.

Understood. But don’t you suppose that the general acceptance of the hypotheses behind evolution are influenced by a culture that makes it popular to view the Church and the Bible as archaic and most of the things they say are wrong to be cool?

I don’t. With the country consisting of 85% or so Christians, it is hard to play the disrespected card. Rather, the general acceptance of evolutionary theory is due to the mountain of evidence supporting it, the lack of any evidence to contradict it, and the 100 years of peer-reviewed refinements that make it an absolute cornerstone, along with astronomy, geology, paleontology, and physics, of the modern understanding of the world. The brilliant scientists who also happen to be Christians and supporters of evolutionary theory that I know personally would not think of themselves as “cool” for doubting the truthfulness of the Bible.

 

[wanerious]

buffalo:

Realize that by its very definition science shows a limited and restricted view of everything. I would expect scienctists to understand this and think outside the box as to other explanations. I understand this would run counter to their training.

It’s not that it runs counter to their training, or that it would be difficult. It is impossible. In their personal lives, they can believe anything they want, but supernatural explanations are simply, as you point out, not scientific by definition. In the past, supernatural explanations for natural events have been inexorably overturned by advancements in technology and physics. We ought to be careful about making the same mistakes.

 

[wanerious]

Brad:

Our bodies have much more significance than that - especially as it pertains to how we use them - everything we do with them has a spiritual impact. Some of the problems of disconnecting soul from body are summed up in questions from my post you didn’t reference here. I believe separation of soul and body was an early heresy in the Church.

I’m interested to see if this is true. I don’t see where such a separation leads to any of the problems you listed. They are clearly separate entities to a large degree, as we believe one is immortal and one is not. One survives death of the body, one does not. One evolves over generations, one does not.

I wouldn’t either. That’s the point. He operated from very flawed philosophies. But it wasn’t just him. He was informed by scientists regularly that helped shape his belief system and give him reasons to do what he did.

When scientists attempt to interpret or extend a theory beyond its strict predictions, they can easily run into trouble. Evolution predicts or corroborates none of the philosophies they espoused, and none of the other dilemmas you listed.

 

[wanerious]

Brad:

How about “God kicked it off?”

Well, this is what I believe, but we will probably find out more about how this happened in the future. We ought to continue to investigate it as a natural phenomenon to learn more about it.

 

[wanerious]

Brad:

If we have to exclude the section regarding God creating the first man and then the first woman based on excluding the supernatural as possible, then we can exclude all the supernatural from the Bible can’t we?

It all depends on your interpretation, right? It’s not that we necessarily have to excise the supernatural, but just to realize that it is not amenable to scientific investigation. Science certainly has something to say contrary to a literal 6-day creation 10,000 years ago. Now, I hold to the belief that truth cannot condradict truth, so any apparent contradictions stem from an incomplete understanding or an error in interpretation. I hold Genesis to be an accurate description in mythic language of the proper relationship between God, man, and His creation. Just as we are not terribly concerned with who the seed-sower was or what precisely he was sowing in Jesus’ parable, I’m not really concerned that Eden was a physical place or that there really was a serpent that talked. It is very much beside the point.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

I don’t have a problem with the threory of evolution. From dust we came . . .

My problem is when knuckleheads extend the theory to mean “man is just an evolved ape”. I have seen this attitude in friends and frankly it is pretty scary, because it is a dehumanization of man. History shows all too readily how men behave when they view others as animals.

The evidence-even in the purely physical realm-is that man is not just an evolved ape, but I bet lots here would argue me on that

That scares me as future generations are brought up with this fallacy in the forefront of their minds and they decide public policy with life bending technology in their hands, e.g. cloning, genetic selection of children, IVF.

 

[dcdurel]

wanerious:

Hello, again.

40% is too low. Nobody but you seems to believe in even the possibility of a theory of evolution guided by mere “chance”. I would say the number should be closer to 100%, since that is a mischaracterization of evolutionary theory.

This has been pointed out to you many times in many other threads, and yet here we are again.

Only in your words. There are many other possibilities, such as the modern theory of common descent through the means of genetic variation coupled with natural selection. This is in no way equivalent to “random chance”.

He said nothing of the kind. I’m asking you again to please stop writing remarks that are blatantly untrue. There was a quote along the lines of “… God does not play dice” with the universe, with the correct context being that of a right interpretation of quantum behavior. You have tried this before.

Of course not. In schools, we rightly teach the generally accepted scientific views on natural phenomena. If “intelligent design” is somehow recast in a scientific light, and gains significant favor in scientific circles via the peer review process, then in time we may see this new understanding taught. Trying to circumvent the process by shoehorning it in to present curricula is misguided and ultimately dangerous, as it sets a precedent for future popular and possibly unscientific dogmas to be prematurely introduced.

In 1917, Albert Einstein developed a cosmological constant that allowed his theory of general relativity to correctly describe what was then thought to be a static universe. Without the constant – referred to in physics as Lambda, but more popularly called Einstein’s fudge factor – general relativity dictates that the universe must collapse into itself, the physical result of gravitation pulling on every speck of matter that exists. Years later, when astronomers were discovering evidence that the universe may not be static, but may be expanding outward in all directions, the cosmological constant became, in a manner of speaking, unnecessary.

Einstein called Lambda the greatest blunder of his life.8] Whatever else it was or was not, the cosmological constant was an early example of our desire to shape reality to fit our beliefs, rather than shaping our beliefs to fit reality. Still, regardless of the impact of Lambda on Einstein’s work and that of others, it came during a time of serious angst for Einstein, a struggle to mathematically reconcile that which escapes comprehension – a supernatural creator; a cause that existed before there was time and matter. He wrote of the necessity of a beginning,9] an event that requires the existence of a beginner. Moreover, he expressed a desire "to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thought; the rest are details."10]

 

[dcdurel]

clarkal:

Back it up.

"Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism
Response to “Not (Just) in Kansas Anymore” by Eugenie C. Scott, Science (May 2000)
Michael J. Behe
Science Online
July 7, 2000

Scott refers to me as an intelligent design “creationist,” even though I clearly write in my book Darwin’s Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think “evolution occurred, but was guided by God.” Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. The biological literature is replete with statements like David DeRosier’s in the journal Cell: “More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human” (1). Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that such observations may be on to something objectively correct?

Scott blames “frontier,” “nonhierarchical” religions for the controversy in biology education in the United States. As a member of the decidedly hierarchical, mainstream Roman Catholic Church, I think a better candidate for blame is the policing of orthodoxy by the NCSE and others–abetting lawsuits to suppress discussion of truly open questions and decrying academic advocates of intelligent design for “organiz[ing] conferences” and “writ[ing] op-ed pieces and books.” Among a lot of religious citizens, who aren’t quite the yahoos evolutionists often seem to think they are, such activities raise doubts that the issues are being fairly presented, which might then cause some people to doubt the veracity of scientists in other areas too. Ironically, the activity of Scott and the NCSE might itself be promoting the mistrust of science they deplore.

1. David J. DeRosier, Cell 93, 17 (1998). "
   SEE THIS LINK:
   arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idisnotcreationism.htm

Thus we must conclude:

Evolution guided by God is another type of intelligent design.
Thus, at least 40% of scientists believe in evolution by intelligent design, in this case God Himself.

And no evolutionist in the world can explain the origins of life except by intelligent design. That is why they avoid the subject or try to limit it only to the devlopement of life after it has formed.

But even then, none have been able to overcome the problems Michael Behe presents, in Darwins Black Box.

Evolution by chance is a nice myth.
Evolution by intelligent design is a possible theory.

Even 40% of scientists agree.

 

[Brad]

wanerious:

I’m interested to see if this is true. I don’t see where such a separation leads to any of the problems you listed. They are clearly separate entities to a large degree, as we believe one is immortal and one is not. One survives death of the body, one does not. One evolves over generations, one does not.

Here are some references to teachings on soul-body unity:

catholic-forum.com/saints/ncd01335.htm

stignatiusreading.org/vm/index.asp?vm_id=6&art_id=20338

nccbuscc.org/education/catechetics/livlghtfall01.htm

christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/visible2.html

For in-depth analysis of this, Pope John Paul II “Theology of the Body” is a great source.