Evolution refuting catholicism?

[SocaliCatholic]

adnauseum:

By the way, posting guidelines clearly state you should not make long posts. Why do you disobey this rule constantly?

I’m sorry. For a minute there I must have confused you for an official Catholic Answers moderator.

 

[SocaliCatholic]

wanerious:

I don’t go so far as Buffalo as to say that this is evidence of design or of a higher power, since I like to leave room for future discoveries of beautiful and unifying physical principles, but currently there is some room there nevertheless. I don’t draw any distinction between the natural principles of cosmology and those of evolution; rightly understood, evolutionary theory is a beautiful expression of those natural laws and principles we’ve been fortunate and bright enough to uncover.

And I wont go as far as Wanerious to say that there is evidence of evolutionary design from the desks of clever biologists, since I like to leave room for future discoveries of beautiful and unifying physical principals that clearly demonstrate Creation.

Now, on to Alec’s post

 

[clmowry]

hecd2:

The fact is that, not being a scientific historian, I cannot say with any precision just when the evidence for evolution became so powerful that to deny it requires pervesity, dishonesty or ignorance. That point was passed at least decades ago.

Wow. Pervese, dishonest and ignorant. Well at least I understand how you view me now.

Chuck

 

[SocaliCatholic]

**Continuation

**The fact is that, not being a scientific historian, I cannot say with any precision just when the evidence for evolution became so powerful that to deny it requires pervesity, dishonesty or ignorance. That point was passed at least decades ago. Nothing that we have discovered since then refutes the basic principle - on the contrary, everything from the analysis of the roots of the tree of life to the comparative genomics of man and mouse, points inexorably to common descent with modification based on mutational and recombinational change and Natural and Sexual Selection.

Every year there are tens of thousands of observations in systematics, comparative genomics, structural bioogy, developmental biology, field zoology and botany, palaeontology, population genetics, and other biological sciences that strengthen the foundations of evolutionary theory and none that undermine it.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Alec,

Thank you for that well-written historical summary that would have taken many more books and years of my time to put into a knowledgeable perspective.

Ok with respect to our “Grand Agreement” (I gave it a name) from previous threads you have clearly demonstrated that you understand the framework and context of evolutionary biology (regardless if evolution actually occurred or not), which I do not call into question.

What I am calling into question is the authoritative underpinnings of which we are obliged to believe any conclusion put forth by scientists with respect to the lack of observed evidence.

In the American legal system when we have a trial, the authority either rests with the Judge or a Jury. They are the ones who examine all the given evidence and put forth a legally binding decision which is enforced.

The fact is that, not being a scientific historian, I cannot say with any precision just when the evidence for evolution became so powerful that to deny it requires pervesity, dishonesty or ignorance. That point was passed at least decades ago.

Here it appears that you are assigning the authority of accepting a scientific conclusion to a scientific historian.

Can you see where I am going with this?

 

[SocaliCatholic]

hecd2:

Ultimately, it’s up to you to decide whether to accept scientific findings on faith; or to make the effort to truly understand scientific hypotheses and their empirical foundations and so accept or reject them knowledgeably;

This is logically a great statement.

So if I understand you here, it appears that you are allowing room for faith but conclsions reached knowledgeably are ideal.

or to reject the authority of science. That’s your choice.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

This is the nugget of truth that I am trying understand- the authority of science.

Where does that authority origniate? The authority of science is directly related to whether or not we should accept the conclusion of evolution. Please don’t take it personally that I don’t accept your conclusion that it did occur - i’m sure that you would agree that would be bad science.

 

[wanerious]

SocaliCatholic:

And I wont go as far as Wanerious to say that there is evidence of evolutionary design from the desks of clever biologists, since I like to leave room for future discoveries of beautiful and unifying physical principals that clearly demonstrate Creation.

This is an interesting remark. Physical principles that demonstrate Creation? I must admit I have a hard time imagining that such a thing could occur. In partial response to your later remark, the authority of science reigns over the physical world. It is our best (and only) tool to discover underlying patterns and structure in the universe. Can physical theories discover that which is, by definition, non-physical? I’ll have to think about that, but I really don’t think so. Science operates with the tacit assumption that all observable phenomena can be physically explained. Supernatural phenomena, since they can’t be explained via scientific principles, would forever remain mysterious and unexplained by physical rules.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

is this tired old chestnut still around?

Brown10985:

Hi,
Macroevolution is something that I’ve been deeply struggeling with.

Thism macro/micro evolution thing is an artificial distinction created by those who want to explain drug ressitanet bacteria but not extend the principle to larger organisms

Brown10985:

I believe in the Catholic Church and everything she says it is though I just don’t see how belief in macroevolution is compatible with Catholicism.

if you believe in the Church then how come you don’t listen to the teaching (one that has been around since the 1870s) that there is no conflict between evolution and Catholicism?

Brown10985:

None of the evidence points to monogenism.

Does it have to?

A literal interpretation of the bible calls for either generations of incest or the unexplained appearance of spouses for the children of Adam and Eve.

What is wrong with a slowly evolving population of near humans where one pair happens to cross the threshold first…soon to be followed by others?

A literal interpretation of Genesis also calls for a flat world with a solid firmament above it. Is geography or meteorology in conflict with Catholicism then?

Brown10985:

My professors tell me that, even though it is a theory, the evidence is so strong for macroevolution that it’s widely accepted as fact among most scientists.

As is Relativity or Germ theory; you wouldn’t say that your dentist didn’t have to wash his hands before he put them in his mouth because that’s “just a theory” now would you?

Brown10985:

This confuses and scares me.

Help

Brian

Don’t worry about it

You don’t have to know fluid dynamics to fly in a plane

The important fact is that God created the world……how he did it doesn’t really matter that much.

 

[wanerious]

SocaliCatholic:

So if I understand you here, it appears that you are allowing room for faith but conclsions reached knowledgeably are ideal.

…and using scientific “faith” is a great time-saver. In my schooling in astronomy, I simply took on authority most things proposed to me through lectures and textbooks. There was the occasional finding pursued in great detail, and of course we must dissect any relatively new hypotheses for other possibly valid interpretations, but by and large a reasonable strategy is to assume that these people who came before me were pretty smart, and their ideas were thoroughly wrought through the crucible of their peers. It is maybe a little unfortunate that some ideas I have accepted are imprecise, but hopefully they’ll expose themselves and be improved upon by the same scientific method by which they were originally proposed. And, should I really suspect some grand inconsistencies, I can always dig down to the original work and propose my own solutions for review. There’s lots of new and wonderful phenomena out there that need detailed explanations.

 

[SocaliCatholic]

wanerious:

…and using scientific “faith” is a great time-saver. In my schooling in astronomy, I simply took on authority most things proposed to me through lectures and textbooks. There was the occasional finding pursued in great detail, and of course we must dissect any relatively new hypotheses for other possibly valid interpretations, but by and large a reasonable strategy is to assume that these people who came before me were pretty smart, and their ideas were thoroughly wrought through the crucible of their peers. It is maybe a little unfortunate that some ideas I have accepted are imprecise, but hopefully they’ll expose themselves and be improved upon by the same scientific method by which they were originally proposed. And, should I really suspect some grand inconsistencies, I can always dig down to the original work and propose my own solutions for review. There’s lots of new and wonderful phenomena out there that need detailed explanations.

Precisely! my evolutionist friend, this is the reason to which I DO NOT take seriously the conclusion that we evolved! (although I respect your science and creative thinking)

That it takes so much bra(name removed by moderator)ower, research, and time to understand evolutionary biology (as demonstrated by all of evolution’s scientific jargon) that it is likely that you’ve lost sight of the bigger picture that it is logically impossible for it to occur relative to the lack of evidence unless secondary evidence is ordered within that particular evolutionary paradigm.

The science is most likely correct, but the conclusion of the scientists is not!

Why should large groups of smart but wrong people like this suprise you?

[sarcasm]
Don’t many believe that there are millions and millions of deluded people out there that call themselves Christians and believe that God created everything relative to their education?
[/sarcasm]

 

[wanerious]

SocaliCatholic:

That it takes so much bra(name removed by moderator)ower, research, and time to understand evolutionary biology (as demonstrated by all of evolution’s scientific jargon) that it is likely that you’ve lost sight of the bigger picture that it is logically impossible for it to occur relative to the lack of evidence unless secondary evidence is ordered within that particular evolutionary paradigm.

Of course, if there were no evidence for it, we would not conclude that it happened. Since there is enormous evidence that it has, and still is, occurring from numerous and independent fields of science, we conclude that it is probably correct. What else can we scientifically conclude, other than that which follows from the evidence?

The science is most likely correct, but the conclusion of the scientists is not!

Scientific conclusions can be shown to be incorrect through either a new theory that better explains observations or by observations that contradict the conclusions. Which is it?

Why should large groups of smart but wrong people like this suprise you?

(sarcasm)
Don’t many believe that there are millions and millions of deluded people out there that call themselves Christians and believe that God created everything relative to their education?
(/sarcasm)

Sarcasm noted, though it is not at all sarcastic to some. I would be very surprised if this large number of people is completely wrong, and not just wrong based on insufficient technology, as was the case before Einstein (and, surely, we still are a little wrong today). Large numbers of people can indeed be completely wrong regarding conclusions based on that which is nonphysical and immune to scientific investigation.

 

[PhilVaz]

I don’t know what it is that SocCatholic does believe. It would help if he just chose one of the alternatives. Here they are:

(1) Young-earth creationists believe God created (from scratch, no evolution allowed) the basic “kinds” of Genesis in 6 literal calendar days about 6000 to 15000 years ago depending. These “kinds” evolved by “microevolution” to the 1.5 to 2 million species we have today in just a couple thousand years since the global Flood of Noah.

(2) Old-earth creationists accept the standard ages of the earth (4.5-4.6 billion) and universe (10-15 billion) and believe God created (from scratch, no evolution) various species or kinds at different times or points in the history of the earth, and the “days” of Genesis 1-2 are to be interpreted as long ages or long periods of time or more figuratively. This group generally rejects macroevolution also but allows microevolution to “create” other species over millions of years of time. They also generally accept the “special creation” of man (body and soul).

(3) Intelligent design theorists range from folks who accept theistic evolution (Behe), to those who question it or deny it (Phillip Johnson) and that God (or the unnamed “Designer”) intervened at the creation of the first cell, or at other points where there is “specified complexity” (Dembski) and that this can be detected by valid scientific principles.

(4) Theistic evolutionists believe God’s method of “creation” was macroevolution, and they believe God intervened at least at the beginning of the universe, and could intervene at any point, but that those godly “interventions” can’t be detected by the normal rules of science (also called methodological naturalism). They also generally interpret early Genesis more figurative or allegorical and accept the common ancestry of human beings, the chimps, and the great apes (they accept human evolution for the body, but the soul was created by God at some point).

Pick one and stick with it so I know where you are coming from. Are you (1), (2), (3), or (4). I am (4). All this complaining about evolution doesn’t mean much if you won’t commit to any alternative. But I do enjoy the discussion and questions you raise anyway…

Phil P

 

[clmowry]

pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/13/7360

This link seems to indicate that our “Most Recent Comon Ancestor” could have been 59,000,000 years ago, rather than 6 Million?

Chuck

 

[wanerious]

pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/13/7360

This link seems to indicate that our “Most Recent Comon Ancestor” could have been 59,000,000 years ago, rather than 6 Million?

Chuck

Well, a quick scan indicates that the date is 59 thousand years, not million, and they are more interested in the geographic sense of common ancestor than the sense of genetic ancestors to us and modern apes.

 

[chemcatholic]

I really wish people would stop using the 2nd law of thermodynamics erroneously. Spontaneous processes are determined by both entropy (order/disorder) and enthalpy (energy) according to Gibb’s free energy (dG = dH - TdS). If spontaneous processes were controlled by entropy alone, then you would never wake up to frost on your windshield in the morning, since ice (a solid) has a lot less entropy than water vapor (a gas).

And please don’t argue that the earth is a closed system, because it is not. As someone mentioned earlier, the sun is constantly pumping energy into the earth, making our planet an open system.

I respect opinions on both sides of the evolution debate, but please use some common sense when forming your arguments.

Peace

 

[SocaliCatholic]

PhilVaz:

I don’t know what it is that SocCatholic does believe. It would help if he just chose one of the alternatives. Here they are:

(1) Young-earth creationists believe God created (from scratch, no evolution allowed) the basic “kinds” of Genesis in 6 literal calendar days about 6000 to 15000 years ago depending. These “kinds” evolved by “microevolution” to the 1.5 to 2 million species we have today in just a couple thousand years since the global Flood of Noah.

(2) Old-earth creationists accept the standard ages of the earth (4.5-4.6 billion) and universe (10-15 billion) and believe God created (from scratch, no evolution) various species or kinds at different times or points in the history of the earth, and the “days” of Genesis 1-2 are to be interpreted as long ages or long periods of time or more figuratively. This group generally rejects macroevolution also but allows microevolution to “create” other species over millions of years of time. They also generally accept the “special creation” of man (body and soul).

(3) Intelligent design theorists range from folks who accept theistic evolution (Behe), to those who question it or deny it (Phillip Johnson) and that God (or the unnamed “Designer”) intervened at the creation of the first cell, or at other points where there is “specified complexity” (Dembski) and that this can be detected by valid scientific principles.

(4) Theistic evolutionists believe God’s method of “creation” was macroevolution, and they believe God intervened at least at the beginning of the universe, and could intervene at any point, but that those godly “interventions” can’t be detected by the normal rules of science (also called methodological naturalism). They also generally interpret early Genesis more figurative or allegorical and accept the common ancestry of human beings, the chimps, and the great apes (they accept human evolution for the body, but the soul was created by God at some point).

Pick one and stick with it so I know where you are coming from. Are you (1), (2), (3), or (4). I am (4). All this complaining about evolution doesn’t mean much if you won’t commit to any alternative. But I do enjoy the discussion and questions you raise anyway…

Phil P

I am an anti-evolutionist evolutionist. (1,2,3,4)

This means: I believe that God made the universe like the Bible says (1&2), but I am willing to accept what science has discovered about evolution within its own bubble of scientific merit(3&4) becuase the Pope says I can with certain reservations.

P.S. Is this really Phil???.. this post doesn’t have any links

 

[PhilVaz]

SocCath << I am an anti-evolutionist evolutionist. (1,2,3,4) >>

That’s what I figured. So you don’t want to commit to any particular anti-evolutionist position so I can pin you down. Okay.

SocCath << This means: I believe that God made the universe like the Bible says (1&2), but I am willing to accept what science has discovered about evolution within its own bubble of scientific merit (3&4) becuase the Pope says I can with certain reservations. >>

Well, we don’t have much to disagree on there then. And yes, I forgot my links. Here is one, I just finished my new game. Everyone play it, tell me what system you are on (Mhz/Ghz, RAM, and what graphics card), and how many frames per second (FPS) you are getting. Download VazTank.zip and follow instructions. Its my new exploration of 3D with OpenGL.

VazGames.com

Phil P

 

[SocaliCatholic]

PhilVaz:

SocCath << I am an anti-evolutionist evolutionist. (1,2,3,4) >>

That’s what I figured. So you don’t want to commit to any particular anti-evolutionist position so I can pin you down. Okay.

SocCath << This means: I believe that God made the universe like the Bible says (1&2), but I am willing to accept what science has discovered about evolution within its own bubble of scientific merit (3&4) becuase the Pope says I can with certain reservations. >>

Well, we don’t have much to disagree on there then. And yes, I forgot my links. Here is one, I just finished my new game. Everyone play it, tell me what system you are on (Mhz/Ghz, RAM, and what graphics card), and how many frames per second (FPS) you are getting. Download VazTank.zip and follow instructions. Its my new exploration of 3D with OpenGL.

VazGames.com

Phil P

Wow cool games! I beat the first level of pac man, but I couldn’t get the tank game to get past 2 fps and im running win2000 with plenty of ram. What is the problem?

 

[PhilVaz]

<< but I couldn’t get the tank game to get past 2 fps and im running win2000 with plenty of ram. What is the problem? >>

Ah ha, send the following information in private message to me:

The name of your graphics card – in Windows 2000 look in Control Panel – Display – and see what it says under your monitor. I will look up your graphics card to see if it supports OpenGL. All the latest NVIDIA (GeForce) and ATI (Radeon) cards are fine, and many of the INTEL cards also work. Might be problem with your graphics card trying to render OpenGL commands in software, rather than in hardware on the card. I’ve seen 2 FPS on my older Win98 machine as well (card is Rage IIC by ATI which does not support OpenGL).

And tell me what year you got your computer, what the processor is, and how much RAM you got. I’ve seen my game run at 50 FPS on an older computer (500 Mhz purchased in 2000) and on another computer purchased the same year, I’ve seen 2 FPS. You’ll need at least 30-40 FPS for a playable game.

Phil P

 

[Newman60]

adnauseum:

I was just wondering, hecd2, how are we to believe what you say?

I myself am not a biologist, and no matter how much reading I do, I don’t think I could ever come to the point where I convince myself beyond a shadow of a doubt that what you say is true.

Yet if I accept your testimony based on faith, just as I accept the facts handed down by the Apostles, isn’t that something you would ridicule me for?

You believe hec2d simply because hec2d and PhilVaz determine what is good science or bad science as you can see in any of their posts when someone dares to disagree.
There is also of course the major hurdle that hec2d, PhilVaz and others don’t believe that they are using a faith system. Evolution theory is based on assumptions which you must therefore blindly adhere to or be, as you expected, ridiculed for your “ignorance”.
There are on the other hand many people with whom you can discuss something like paleobotanist Jennifer McElwain’s study of fossilized leaves and how they relate to the age of mountains as that is described in the December issue of “Geology”. That is interesting whether one accepts evolution or not. It gives geologists a new way to try to measure geophysical changes in the earth’s topography.
Newman60

 

[wanerious]

Newman60:

You believe hec2d simply because hec2d and PhilVaz determine what is good science or bad science as you can see in any of their posts when someone dares to disagree.

Come on, Newman. You are more intellectually honest than that. There are members of this discussion with more scientific expertise, experience, and exposure than others. We ought to respectfully consider their opinion, especially when both Alec and Phil tirelessly provide links and resources for others to read and consider. Science provides a means of objectively determining what is good science or bad science. There’s no need to be catty.

There is also of course the major hurdle that hec2d, PhilVaz and others don’t believe that they are using a faith system. Evolution theory is based on assumptions which you must therefore blindly adhere to or be, as you expected, ridiculed for your “ignorance”.

Ok, here’s your chance. What are these assumptions to which we “evolutionists” must blindly hold? Is this a vast conspiracy amongst thousands of scientists around the world to hide the ugly, unadmitted truth?