Evolution supported in Father Groeschel program

[Cece]

The theory of evolution purports that all things are evolved from simpler organisms.

1. Where are the inbetween species? Don’t give me that ape-man stuff. Where are the links between the fish and the mammals? Where are the half-plant/half-animals? Give me a break. There is a lot of speculation that goes on that is later
   proved false, and I think it’s stupidity to base an entire world view on science that is questionable at best.
2. A one-celled organism, such as a flagellum, is far more complex than Darwin or his contemporaries could determine with their microscopes. The theory purports that one-celled animals are the simplest, when in fact they are very complex (the flagellate of the flagellum is a rather complex machine, it’s just microscopic). This fact alone serves as a counter-example to his theory, and it only takes one counter-example to prove a theory false.
3. Evolutionists are dogmatic in their beliefs and are proof-testing the theory, rather than honestly testing from a skeptical point of view. It was considered a scientific FACT that there were canals on Mars until telescopes that were powerful enough to see what was there debunked that. Yet, people still believe in martians today. Has it ever occured to these people that until Jules Verne, or whoever it was, came up with the martian idea, no one had seen anything remotely like it, much less did they talk about it? Evolutionists remind me of drug companies and marketing companies skewing data to prove what they want it to prove. They have to because they justify their abortion and euthanasia with it.

I listened to Fr. Groeschel’s show and I believe he was speculating about what he had been taught. I doubt he thinks about it much. I think you are overreacting if you are mad at him over it. It never posed a problem for me, because it was purported as a theory, and I understood it as such since childhood. Since then, I believe it has been debunked and that people refuse to let go of it because thier entire worldview and value system is based on it. I think fundamentalists consider it a big deal because their faith rides on the literal interpretation of Scripture. I admire thier taking on the status quo, though, because otherwise, we may all be led into a big error because we do not have critical-thinking or logic skills and swallow whatever sounds good.

Darwin’s Black Box, by Michael Behe is an excellent resource that gives the most recent findings on the subject.

 

[PhilVaz]

Hello, earth to anti-evolutionists, paging all anti-evolutionists. I have two links for you

TalkOrigins.org

Benedict XVI to all Catholics: Evolution is True
(from July 2004, see especially paragraphs 62-70)

Phil P

 

[Lady_Cygnus]

Cece:

The theory of evolution purports that all things are evolved from simpler organisms.

1. Where are the inbetween species? Don’t give me that ape-man stuff. Where are the links between the fish and the mammals? Where are the half-plant/half-animals? Give me a break. There is a lot of speculation that goes on that is later
   proved false, and I think it’s stupidity to base an entire world view on science that is questionable at best.

I remember seeing a show where a fish slowly crawled out of the water (transition between a fish and an amphibian).

There is also an old group of dinosaurs that was part mammal and part reptile, it is believed that from these the first mammals came about.

1. A one-celled organism, such as a flagellum, is far more complex than Darwin or his contemporaries could determine with their microscopes. The theory purports that one-celled animals are the simplest, when in fact they are very complex (the flagellate of the flagellum is a rather complex machine, it’s just microscopic). This fact alone serves as a counter-example to his theory, and it only takes one counter-example to prove a theory false.

No, it just says there is more evolution doesn’t know yet.

1. Evolutionists are dogmatic in their beliefs and are proof-testing the theory, rather than honestly testing from a skeptical point of view. It was considered a scientific FACT that there were canals on Mars until telescopes that were powerful enough to see what was there debunked that. Yet, people still believe in martians today. Has it ever occured to these people that until Jules Verne, or whoever it was, came up with the martian idea, no one had seen anything remotely like it, much less did they talk about it? Evolutionists remind me of drug companies and marketing companies skewing data to prove what they want it to prove. They have to because they justify their abortion and euthanasia with it.

You know what I dislike about ID, it turns a whole class of people into evil “drug companies” for thinking logic isn’t so bad. Does gravity not exist because we don’t know all the details? Does Quantum Physics? Cosomology? Science is the attempt to study our environment using observables. So far to date evolution is the best theory for explaining life on earth. I’ve not heard another scientific explanation for this and until one is presented evolution will be the one tested.

 

[Lady_Cygnus]

mike182d:

The fallacy of your argument is that your supposing that the omnipotence of God entails His ability to do whatever He wants and that things like order and logic are arbitrary and conditionally dependent on the whim of God. Just because God can do anything doesn’t mean anything is possible. God can’t create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it and He cannot use evolution to create for the very same reason: doing so would deny Himself.

GREAT! Then you agree evolution is true …

ook seriously. If God can’t do anything against his nature, and his nature is to create, what is wrong with evolution. It is the process by which God created living things. We can observe the process and wonder that God choose to create us in the way that he did. It is hardly random!

The whole purpose of creation is for God to reveal unto our senses the inimate union He desires to share with us and how there is purpose in creation. If our senses perceive the creation of our bodies as “random” despite God’s knowledge of it, then God has defeated His own purpose in creating. If our bodies are intimately connected with our souls and subsequently intimately connected with God, then there is something God is trying to reveal in that intimacy and it would be against His nature to create a “process” to mask that.

God is not a “process” and to think that the world is run by “processes” instead of God, as the effective cause of every moment in time, is called Deism. There’s no other way around it.

Our bodies weren’t created “randomly”, even if you don’t believe in God. Evolution wasn’t “random”, it was the adaptation of creatures to their environment. A random mutation would be growing an arm out of your head. An adaptation is developing a hand that can grip and pick things up when such a tool is needed.

We don’t understand all of God’s creation, we perhaps never will. That doesn’t make all of science wrong because it will deny the nature of God. Perhaps one of the reasons God made nature so vast it cannot be all understood (so that it appears “random” to us) was so we could have a glimpse into the Nature of God.

As to your Mustang example, I prefer the one of a painter. God is a painter using different tools to make his painting. As he layers on the paint the painting “evolves” quite beautifully. He is not the paintbrushes, nor the paint, but he uses both to create.

In the same way, God is not “the process of evolution”, but he uses these processes to create.

 

[PhilVaz]

Cece << Darwin’s Black Box, by Michael Behe is an excellent resource that gives the most recent findings on the subject. >>

Recent? 1996 is recent? Almost ten years old now.Try the TalkOrigins Behe page. See the Index to Creationist Claims for the rest of your questions.

Now let us see what Behe accepts:

“Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions at the beginning of the book. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin’s mechanism – natural selection working on variation – might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life.” (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, page 5)

NOTE: Behe accepts the standard age of the earth and he accepts common descent (what is called “macroevolution”). He also accepts human evolution, that humans and chimps had a common ancestor several million years ago:

“Behe, for example, accepts the reality of evolutionary change to an extent that even his supporters find surprising. In a 1995 debate [meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation at Montreat College in North Carolina], I presented him with molecular evidence indicating that humans and the great apes shared a recent, common ancestor, wondering how he would refute the obvious. Without skipping a beat, he pronounced the evidence to be convincing, and stated categorically that he had absolutely no problem with the common ancestry of humans and the great apes. Creationists around the room – who had viewed him as their new champion – were dismayed.” (from Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin’s God, page 163-164)

Behe also believes that Darwin’s “natural selection” is an acceptable position for a Catholic:

“The point I’m trying to drive home here by discussing my own work as well as the work of Miller and Haught, is that a very wide range of views about the mechanism of evolution is consistent with Catholic teaching, from the natural selection defended by [Kenneth] Miller, to the intelligent design I have proposed, to the animated, information-suffused universe that John Haught sees. Those mechanisms are all proposed by persons who attach the same bottom-line philosophy to their ideas that Pope John Paul described: that ‘it is the God of Israel who acts’ and that ‘it is the one and the same God who establishes and guarantees the intelligibility and reasonableness of the natural order of things upon which scientists confidently depend, and who reveals himself as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Indeed, the range of possibilities that are available under a Catholic viewpoint is much wider than under a materialistic viewpoint.” (Michael Behe, from “A Catholic Scientist Looks at Darwinism” in Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing edited by William Dembski [2004], page 143-144)

Sorry Behe is on my side (and Benedict XVI’s side), not yours.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Cece << Where are the links between the fish and the mammals? Where are the half-plant/half-animals? Give me a break. >>

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/FunnyTrans.jpg

Seriously, help yourself to TalkOrigins (Transitional Fossils FAQ from 1997, old but still valid)

Phil P

 

[steveandersen]

:banghead:
give me strength

Cece:

The theory of evolution purports that all things are evolved from simpler organisms.

No, common decent is the fact of evolution

The theory of evolution proposes natural selection as the mechanism

Cece:

1. Where are the inbetween species?

You’re kidding right?

Cece:

Don’t give me that ape-man stuff. Where are the links between the fish and the mammals?

Coincidentally, there’s a real good article in this months Scientific American related to the emergence of tetrapods (the fish that gave rise to all land vertebrates)
You should check it out.

……2. A one-celled organism, such as a flagellum, is far more complex than Darwin or his contemporaries could determine with their microscopes. The theory purports that one-celled animals are the simplest, when in fact they are very complex

Of course they’re complex…they’ve been evolving for hundreds of millions of years!

Are you suggesting that today’s single celled organisms are the same as those eons ago?

Cece:

(the flagellate of the flagellum is a rather complex machine, it’s just microscopic). This fact alone serves as a counter-example to his theory, and it only takes one counter-example to prove a theory false.

Sigh, try this

Cece:

1. Evolutionists are dogmatic in their beliefs and are proof-testing the theory, rather than honestly testing from a skeptical point of view. It was considered a scientific FACT that there were canals on Mars

ROTFLOL

Your joking right?

……. Yet, people still believe in martians today.

Please provide documentation for scientists “believing” in Martians
And what if anything does that have to do with evolution?

Cece:

Has it ever occured to these people that until Jules Verne, or whoever it was, came up with the martian idea, no one had seen anything remotely like it, much less did they talk about it?

So ………no one can ever have a novel idea? And all ideas must be 100% correct from the inception or we shouldn’t bother?

Cece:

Evolutionists remind me of drug companies and marketing companies skewing data to prove what they want it to prove. They have to because they justify their abortion and euthanasia with it.

I would suggest that paleontology is a little different than the big dollar world of pharmaceutical research

…….Darwin’s Black Box, by Michael Behe is an excellent resource that gives the most recent findings on the subject.

Mr. Behe has been refuted ten ways to Sunday.

 

[Kristina_P]

mike182d:

The fallacy of your argument is that your supposing that the omnipotence of God entails His ability to do whatever He wants and that things like order and logic are arbitrary and conditionally dependent on the whim of God. Just because God can do anything doesn’t mean anything is possible. God can’t create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it and He cannot use evolution to create for the very same reason: doing so would deny Himself.

The whole purpose of creation is for God to reveal unto our senses the inimate union He desires to share with us and how there is purpose in creation. If our senses perceive the creation of our bodies as “random” despite God’s knowledge of it, then God has defeated His own purpose in creating. If our bodies are intimately connected with our souls and subsequently intimately connected with God, then there is something God is trying to reveal in that intimacy and it would be against His nature to create a “process” to mask that.

God is not a “process” and to think that the world is run by “processes” instead of God, as the effective cause of every moment in time, is called Deism. There’s no other way around it.

So, God doesn’t use processes to do anything? There are no processes? Whether our senses perceive randomness in creation is not up to you. Science, the use of our senses to observe the world, has perceived randomness whether you like it or not (look into quantum theory). If you choose to discount science, that’s your prerogative, but I believe it would be against the nature of God to give us senses and a world to observe, but have those senses consistently lie to us.
God can be the effective cause of every moment in time and still use processes. If an apple falls to the ground, is it because of gravity or because God caused it? The answer is both, because God caused gravity. He didn’t cause gravity and walk away, but it would be completely unnecessary to say that he didn’t cause gravity but rather causes the individual fall of every single apple without the use of any kind of process or physical law. After all, God using a process would somehow violate His nature.

 

[mike182d]

Lady Cygnus:

If God can’t do anything against his nature, and his nature is to create, what is wrong with evolution. It is the process by which God created living things. We can observe the process and wonder that God choose to create us in the way that he did. It is hardly random!

Which is worth more: the Mona Lisa as painted by Leonardo DaVinci or digital printout done by a machine? Why?

Our bodies weren’t created “randomly”, even if you don’t believe in God. Evolution wasn’t “random”, it was the adaptation of creatures to their environment.

A land-based creature developing wings when nothing before it existed is not “adaption” that’s innovation. No one disagrees with micro-evolution. We’re talking about macro-evolution and speciation.

A random mutation would be growing an arm out of your head. An adaptation is developing a hand that can grip and pick things up when such a tool is needed.

No, that’s not adaptation, that’s innovation. Assuming your theory holds true, if there were several hundered generations of mothers with twelve kids, they should be growing a third or four arm to accomodate their needs. Correct? The problem is that DNA is not intelligent. It cannot perceive needs, wants or desires as those are qualities of a mind capable of conscious thought. “Survival of the fittest” merely states that any animal not suitably adapted to its environment will die out, thereby leaving the “strongest” of the mutations to survive, but I fail to see how science can explain a tadpole finding it necessary for survival to grow wings and fly.

We don’t understand all of God’s creation, we perhaps never will. That doesn’t make all of science wrong because it will deny the nature of God.

These are two different issues. Not understanding all of God’s creation is quite a different matter than denying God’s nature entirely. “Nature,” although pagan and rediculous to seriously refer to it as an entity in and of itself, can be beyond our finite comprehension in its workings and still not deny the nature of God. If at any point an explanation of creation denies the very nature of the creator, it is no longer a valid theory.

Perhaps one of the reasons God made nature so vast it cannot be all understood (so that it appears “random” to us) was so we could have a glimpse into the Nature of God.

I fail to see how creating an impersonal, self-sufficient mechanism, or “force,” to form and create life reveals anything of God’s nature. Perhaps I’m missing something, but that’s a connection I can’t seem to make in my mind.

As to your Mustang example, I prefer the one of a painter. God is a painter using different tools to make his painting. As he layers on the paint the painting “evolves” quite beautifully. He is not the paintbrushes, nor the paint, but he uses both to create.

Ok, let’s stick with your analogy of the painter. Which painting is worth more: the painting painted by the artist or digital reproductions of the same painting created by a self-sufficient autonomated mechanism?

Or let’s think of famous autographs. Which autograph is worth more: the one penned by the actual celebrity or the one copied a dozen times by a Zerox machine?

In the same way, God is not “the process of evolution”, but he uses these processes to create.

If God uses evolution, how is it a viable scientific theory? Unless one knows the mind of God, one cannot possibly understand how evolution is going to work. Isn’t that the main argument against Intelligent Design?

Basically, as an omnipotent Creator that is the source of all in existence, you cannot say that God needs evolution to create. If God doesn’t *need *evolution to create, and could create life in much the same way as He created everything ex nihilo - or out of nothing - why on earth would He change His method? In what ways does that aid in our understanding God as opposed to creation ex nihilo?

 

[Kristina_P]

mike182d:

No, that’s not adaptation, that’s innovation. Assuming your theory holds true, if there were several hundered generations of mothers with twelve kids, they should be growing a third or four arm to accomodate their needs. Correct? The problem is that DNA is not intelligent. It cannot perceive needs, wants or desires as those are qualities of a mind capable of conscious thought. “Survival of the fittest” merely states that any animal not suitably adapted to its environment will die out, thereby leaving the “strongest” of the mutations to survive, but I fail to see how science can explain a tadpole finding it necessary for survival to grow wings and fly.

I’m not going to argue the whole nature of God thing anymore, because I simply disagree with you there.

Science doesn’t explain how a tadpole finds it necessary to do anything. As you said, DNA is not intelligent. DNA does, however, randomly mutate. There are plenty of cells in your body right now that have random mutations. Chances are that those mutations cause the cell to no longer be viable, and the cell dies, usually by the regulated process of apoptosis. Some random mutations, combined with other random mutations, lead to cancer. A random mutation in a germ line that happens to lend a slight reproductive advantage to the next generation would most likely be retained over successive generations, because of natural selection. A long, long series of random mutations that lend reproductive advantages leads to another species.

I admit that macro-evolution can be hard to swallow, and it necessarily requires super-long timelines for it to work. I think that it makes a whole lot more sense if you look at it as the tool (like the paintbrush in your Mona Lisa example) of the Creator God, rather than as nothing more than chance in a godless universe.

I want to assure you that I don’t think ill of people who disbelieve Evolution. I don’t think they’re stupid. If your arguments against Evolution convince you, then that’s fine. They don’t convince me, but we’re allowed to disagree on this and both be in agreement with the Church.

 

[Kristina_P]

mike182d:

Basically, as an omnipotent Creator that is the source of all in existence, you cannot say that God needs evolution to create. If God doesn’t *need *evolution to create, and could create life in much the same way as He created everything ex nihilo - or out of nothing - why on earth would He change His method? In what ways does that aid in our understanding God as opposed to creation ex nihilo?

No, God doesn’t need evolution. But, to me, using evolution shows that God has created an orderly universe, one that can be observed and investigated by science. To me, the biological principles at work in evolution are beautiful and point to an intelligent designer able to put together a universe that works on observable principles of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology and the other sciences. As we delve deeper into those sciences, the discovery of the existence of mathematical randomness and unpredictability shows that God has left some things hidden, and that we shouldn’t be so prideful as to assume our science can lead us into all truth. We still have need of God, and he is not a divine clockmaker. The theory of evolution, together with what I know from the other sciences, points me to the truth of God. It does not take away from the specialness of man, and I believe God has been very present throughout Creation. Even the Bible account does not say He created man ex nihilo. It says He created Him from clay, then breathed life into Him. To me, it is not creation ex nihilo that makes for an intimate relationship with God, it is the breath of the Creator.

 

[mike182d]

Kristina P.:

So, God doesn’t use processes to do anything? There are no processes?..(look into quantum theory).

I have looked into Quantum Theory, but I also know there was a time when Quantum Theory was a new revelation. A remember when we used to think atoms were the smallest particles too. In fact, remember when scientists used to think the earth was flat?

In philosophy class years ago, one of my professors told us of a running gag between him and a science professor he was good friends with in which the science professor would say: “You’re still trying to figure out questions from thousands of years ago? What a waste of time.” to which my former philosophy professor would say: “Everything you’re studying for will be outdated in thirty years. What a waste of time.”

Science is not a rock-solid study for two reasons: 1) It is merely the assesment of conscious, although finite, beings with the capacity for sensual experience and 2) it is purely empirical and assumes as a foundational premise that what we perceive is the true state of things. Both are faulty premises and I think it is arrogant for people to assume that everything we know today is the fullness of all knowledge of how things work and that it is not possible for it ever to be outdated and wrong.

Just remember we were all taught that the atom was the smallest particle not too long ago…

If you choose to discount science, that’s your prerogative…

I do not discount science by any means but I would certainly put it in its proper place. It is an attempt to understand corrolations between perceived events. I think Theology and Divine Revelation explain more about life than science ever could.

God can be the effective cause of every moment in time and still use processes. If an apple falls to the ground, is it because of gravity or because God caused it?

Excellent question. What is gravity? The obvious answer is: a force. Well, yes, but what *is *a force? A force is not a tangible, identifiable causal agent but a perceived effect void of a perceived cause and so, given the strict empirical nature of science, in the absence of being able to identify a cause, the perceived effect is defined as its own sufficient cause. Very faulty logic. Its like the following analogy:

Let’s say I’m at a baseball field throwing baseballs, and I manage to throw one - I don’t know how, but humor me for the moment - at 80 m.p.h. The scientist would be like a man behind a bush who cannot see me, but can see the ball move and has an instrument that clocks the speed. Since the scientist can measure the speed of the ball, but cannot see what caused it to move, he defines the cause as “fast-ball force” with a speed of 80 m.p.h. This is preposterous. There is not a “fast-ball force” causing the ball to move. I, as an agent, am causing the ball to move. The difference is that in studying causal relationships, an affect is never of the same essence as the cause. For instance, heat is not fire, but heat causes fire. Or better yet, my identity cannot be defined as “typing,” even though I am causing that effect right now. I am “me” and *I *cause myself to type. See the difference?

The problem with “forces” is that they cannot be identified apart from their effect. They *are *the effect, but since we cannot see the cause, we just assume that it is because it is and define it as such. I suppose a = a is a valid logical formula…

The answer is both, because God caused gravity…

Once again, this position is Deism. Let me ask you this: If God did not intervene, would it be possible for the universe to continue on its own for even a little while? If your answer is no, then these “laws” and “forces” are not the effective causes you think they are but rather it is God who is the immediate cause of every moment in the cosmos. If something is a cause, then it is necessarily so and the effect could not exist apart from it. However, if your answer is yes, then you believe in an autonomous creation not dependent on God at all for its continued existence - and I mean “continued” not “initial.” The former is consistent with Catholic theology an incompatible with the current scientific understanding of evolution while the latter is consistent with contemporary scientific theory but contrary to Catholic theology.

I, for one, choose the former.

 

[Lady_Cygnus]

mike182d:

Ok, let’s stick with your analogy of the painter. Which painting is worth more: the painting painted by the artist or digital reproductions of the same painting created by a self-sufficient autonomated mechanism?

Of course the original is worth more. As far as we know creation is unique (we would have to be outside it to see if God “photocopied” it somewehre else)

If God uses evolution, how is it a viable scientific theory? Unless one knows the mind of God, one cannot possibly understand how evolution is going to work. Isn’t that the main argument against Intelligent Design?

I don’t follow your logic. This is the argument against Intelligent Design (and why I’m so opposed to it). It can’t be applied to Evolution. Evolution is the study of what the process is, it tries to describe as best it can using observables. Intelligent Design does the opposite, it tries to describe the unknown using God (something that cannot be tested or verified). As such ID is not science.

But saying God uses something doesn’t invalidate it as a scientific theory. Saying God uses stellar evolution to make blue and red stars doesn’t mean we can’t study and understand how it works from a scientific standpoint. At the end of our studies we can sit back and look at the diversity of the stars and praise God for his handywork.

Basically, as an omnipotent Creator that is the source of all in existence, you cannot say that God needs evolution to create. If God doesn’t *need *evolution to create, and could create life in much the same way as He created everything ex nihilo - or out of nothing - why on earth would He change His method? In what ways does that aid in our understanding God as opposed to creation ex nihilo?

No, God does not need evolution, he choose it. He created the universe ex nihilo, He created the stars out of gas, he created the earth out of dust, He created volcanos by crashing continents together and new human life through sexual reproduction.

His methods of creation are various and all around us. Why on earth would He change His method?

Because He wanted to

 

[Lady_Cygnus]

Ok, I’m going to post a new post that addresses what you posted. This post was done too quickly, I should have taken the walk around my building before posting instead of after…

mike182d:

Once again, this position is Deism. Let me ask you this: If God did not intervene, would it be possible for the universe to continue on its own for even a little while? If your answer is no, then these “laws” and “forces” are not the effective causes you think they are but rather it is God who is the immediate cause of every moment in the cosmos. If something is a cause, then it is necessarily so and the effect could not exist apart from it. However, if your answer is yes, then you believe in an autonomous creation not dependent on God at all for its continued existence - and I mean “continued” not “initial.” The former is consistent with Catholic theology an incompatible with the current scientific understanding of evolution while the latter is consistent with contemporary scientific theory but contrary to Catholic theology.

I, for one, choose the former.

I for one choose BOTH. You don’t have to choose between God and Logic! That is what I HATE about ID, that theory causes the scientists to become athiests and the religious to scorn those who believe in science. And as soon as a religious person realizes that Logic is a beautiful thing, they have to leave religion because it’s somehow not compatible.

ARG!!! :banghead: This is why I get that stupid question from all my fellow scientists of “Oh your religious are you, you must believe in <> creationism.”

 

[mike182d]

Kristina P.:

The theory of evolution, together with what I know from the other sciences, points me to the truth of God. It does not take away from the specialness of man, and I believe God has been very present throughout Creation. Even the Bible account does not say He created man ex nihilo. It says He created Him from clay, then breathed life into Him. To me, it is not creation ex nihilo that makes for an intimate relationship with God, it is the breath of the Creator.

However, both the clay and God’s breath were His. There was no cause - or force - other than God present there. So, yes, the Bible does believe man was created ex nihilo in a certain sense because he is not created *by *other things but immediately by the hand of God.

Secondly, you say that evolution is dependent upon random mutations, and then you say this reveals the order of nature and God. That seems to be a huge contradiction. But, if you think it is a legitimate scientific theory, I think we should hold it to the same standards as other scientific theories and ask the following questions of it:

1. What is the current, perceived rate of evolution?
2. What can we expect evolution, under this current rate, to yield in the next thousand, million, or ten million years? (Rough estimates, of course, would be sufficient)
3. Which mutations are a product of evolution and which mutations are adverse affects of chemical or nuclear exposure? Is there a difference? Why?

Meteorology, Astronomy, Chemistry, Quantum Physics, and pretty much every scientific field can use their theories to answer questions similar to these, respective to their own fields of course. I have yet to see evolutionists do so. The best I’ve seen is: “Hey, we’ve caused this microscopic bacteria to change into a different *type *of bacteria! Evolution is true!” That’s hardly a “smoking gun” of macro-evolution, in my opinion.

 

[mike182d]

Lady Cygnus:

I for one choose BOTH.

As I’ve pointed out, that’s a logical contradiction.

You don’t have to choose between God and Logic!

Is logic true because God makes it true, or is logic true because its order is part of God’s nature? Careful how you answer, you might find yourself agreeing with Martin Luther…

That is what I HATE about ID, that theory causes the scientists to become athiests and the religious to scorn those who believe in science. And as soon as a religious person realizes that Logic is a beautiful thing, they have to leave religion because it’s somehow not compatible.

When a scientist tells me that an organism mutated to possess wings out of necessity and survival - and not to mention in perfect dimensions to achieve necessary lift proportionate to its body weight - I become highly skeptical. Show me fossil records of “proven” failed speciations that were part of the evolutionary process and then I might raise and eyebrow. Until then, I fail to see how natural selection can be batting 1000 over the course of several millions years.

ARG!!! :banghead: This is why I get that stupid question from all my fellow scientists of “Oh your religious are you, you must believe in <> creationism.”

I would hope you believed in creationism if you call yourself a Catholic. Not “Biblical” creationism, but I would hope basic creationism.

 

[Kristina_P]

mike182d:

Science is not a rock-solid study for two reasons: 1) It is merely the assesment of conscious, although finite, beings with the capacity for sensual experience and 2) it is purely empirical and assumes as a foundational premise that what we perceive is the true state of things. Both are faulty premises and I think it is arrogant for people to assume that everything we know today is the fullness of all knowledge of how things work and that it is not possible for it ever to be outdated and wrong.

Just remember we were all taught that the atom was the smallest particle not too long ago…

I do not discount science by any means but I would certainly put it in its proper place. It is an attempt to understand corrolations between perceived events. I think Theology and Divine Revelation explain more about life than science ever could.

Excellent question. What is gravity? The obvious answer is: a force. Well, yes, but what *is *a force? A force is not a tangible, identifiable causal agent but a perceived effect void of a perceived cause and so, given the strict empirical nature of science, in the absence of being able to identify a cause, the perceived effect is defined as its own sufficient cause. Very faulty logic. Its like the following analogy:

Let’s say I’m at a baseball field throwing baseballs, and I manage to throw one - I don’t know how, but humor me for the moment - at 80 m.p.h. The scientist would be like a man behind a bush who cannot see me, but can see the ball move and has an instrument that clocks the speed. Since the scientist can measure the speed of the ball, but cannot see what caused it to move, he defines the cause as “fast-ball force” with a speed of 80 m.p.h. This is preposterous. There is not a “fast-ball force” causing the ball to move. I, as an agent, am causing the ball to move. The difference is that in studying causal relationships, an affect is never of the same essence as the cause. For instance, heat is not fire, but heat causes fire. Or better yet, my identity cannot be defined as “typing,” even though I am causing that effect right now. I am “me” and *I *cause myself to type. See the difference?

The problem with “forces” is that they cannot be identified apart from their effect. They *are *the effect, but since we cannot see the cause, we just assume that it is because it is and define it as such. I suppose a = a is a valid logical formula…

Once again, this position is Deism. Let me ask you this: If God did not intervene, would it be possible for the universe to continue on its own for even a little while? If your answer is no, then these “laws” and “forces” are not the effective causes you think they are but rather it is God who is the immediate cause of every moment in the cosmos. If something is a cause, then it is necessarily so and the effect could not exist apart from it. However, if your answer is yes, then you believe in an autonomous creation not dependent on God at all for its continued existence - and I mean “continued” not “initial.” The former is consistent with Catholic theology an incompatible with the current scientific understanding of evolution while the latter is consistent with contemporary scientific theory but contrary to Catholic theology.

I, for one, choose the former.

We do not disagree at all, but seem to be arguing in circles, and I really don’t understand your position at all. I don’t pretend to be the philosopher or logician that you are. In your baseball analogy, do you or do you not agree that your throwing the ball is the immediate causative agent of the ball’s movement? If you don’t, please explain why. I’m really curious as I’ve never heard this line of reasoning before. To me, it seems as though you’re proposing the idea that every event is a separate phenomena caused solely by God and that God has not created any orderly link between events. Therefore, science is worthless.

As to whether the universe could continue to exist if God walked away, of course not. The observable phenomena that we view as causative agents through the lens of science do not exist independent of God, whether they are immediately causative or not. Being itself derives its being from Him and would cease to be without Him. This is not a scientific view, and the observations of science have no bearing on it. Are you referring to the philosophy of scientism? I don’t subscribe to that, as is evidenced by one of my above posts.

 

[Lady_Cygnus]

mike182d:

However, both the clay and God’s breath were His. There was no cause - or force - other than God present there. So, yes, the Bible does believe man was created ex nihilo in a certain sense because he is not created *by *other things but immediately by the hand of God.

Secondly, you say that evolution is dependent upon random mutations, and then you say this reveals the order of nature and God. That seems to be a huge contradiction. But, if you think it is a legitimate scientific theory, I think we should hold it to the same standards as other scientific theories and ask the following questions of it:

1. What is the current, perceived rate of evolution?
2. What can we expect evolution, under this current rate, to yield in the next thousand, million, or ten million years? (Rough estimates, of course, would be sufficient)
3. Which mutations are a product of evolution and which mutations are adverse affects of chemical or nuclear exposure? Is there a difference? Why?

Meteorology, Astronomy, Chemistry, Quantum Physics, and pretty much every scientific field can use their theories to answer questions similar to these, respective to their own fields of course. I have yet to see evolutionists do so. The best I’ve seen is: “Hey, we’ve caused this microscopic bacteria to change into a different *type *of bacteria! Evolution is true!” That’s hardly a “smoking gun” of macro-evolution, in my opinion.

1. I’m guessing the units of this would be in # of new generations. I suppose they could come up with an answer by how long it took to observe bacterial evolution.
2. Since evolution is the adaptation to the environment, it’s not random, but it’s also based on things (climate) which are very poorly modeled at this time. Let’s suppose the climate warms up, we would get a huge extinction of all cold weather creatures, and an increase in creatures that can survive in tropical environments.
3. I don’t know.

I’ve never seen a difference between micro-evolution and macro, except that micro is on small time scales and macro on large. You get different kinds of birds and then you get something that isn’t quite like a bird (penguin?). Or perhaps, mammals, which are no longer mammals (platupus?).

And I’ll quote you next post in my next post

 

[Kristina_P]

mike182d:

However, both the clay and God’s breath were His. There was no cause - or force - other than God present there. So, yes, the Bible does believe man was created ex nihilo in a certain sense because he is not created *by *other things but immediately by the hand of God.

Secondly, you say that evolution is dependent upon random mutations, and then you say this reveals the order of nature and God. That seems to be a huge contradiction. But, if you think it is a legitimate scientific theory, I think we should hold it to the same standards as other scientific theories and ask the following questions of it:

1. What is the current, perceived rate of evolution?
2. What can we expect evolution, under this current rate, to yield in the next thousand, million, or ten million years? (Rough estimates, of course, would be sufficient)
3. Which mutations are a product of evolution and which mutations are adverse affects of chemical or nuclear exposure? Is there a difference? Why?

Meteorology, Astronomy, Chemistry, Quantum Physics, and pretty much every scientific field can use their theories to answer questions similar to these, respective to their own fields of course. I have yet to see evolutionists do so. The best I’ve seen is: “Hey, we’ve caused this microscopic bacteria to change into a different *type *of bacteria! Evolution is true!” That’s hardly a “smoking gun” of macro-evolution, in my opinion.

I think I’m beginning to understand your argument, but I still don’t agree with it.

I’m not an evolutionary biologist, so I can’t answer your question about the rate of evolution.

The course of evolution can’t be reliably predicted, because individual mutations cannot be predicted. It can’t be predicted whether or when the sequence of a specific gene is going to be minutely changed, yielding an altered protein with an altered function that lends a slight reproductive advantage. Compound that with predicting the huge number of mutations, occuring in a specific sequence, that would together yield, eventually, say, an extra arm.

Mutations, in the sense of altered DNA, are not due to evolution. Mutations are just mutations and can be attributed to unpredictable mistakes made by cellular enzymes or to chemical exposure or to radiation. They can lead to reproductive advantages or disadvantages or have no effect on reproduction. If a mutation or series of mutations endures through may generations, it can be concluded that the results of these mutations are a reproductive advantage. This is a summary of the process of evolution.

I’m curious. If one accepts micro-evolution as valid, why does macro-evolution not follow? If mutations and natural selection lead to small changes among populations, why can successive advantageous mutations not lead to large changes? I can understand if you don’t believe that it happened, but I don’t understand why so many people consider it a huge logical leap.

 

[Lady_Cygnus]

Two things first, Kristina P has a great post!

Second this post was made when I was still angry (and perhaps am still).

mike182d:

As I’ve pointed out, that’s a logical contradiction.

Once again, this position is Deism. Let me ask you this: If God did not intervene, would it be possible for the universe to continue on its own for even a little while? If your answer is no, then these “laws” and “forces” are not the effective causes you think they are but rather it is God who is the immediate cause of every moment in the cosmos. If something is a cause, then it is necessarily so and the effect could not exist apart from it. However, if your answer is yes, then you believe in an autonomous creation not dependent on God at all for its continued existence - and I mean “continued” not “initial.” The former is consistent with Catholic theology an incompatible with the current scientific understanding of evolution while the latter is consistent with contemporary scientific theory but contrary to Catholic theology.

google dictionary:

Definitions of Deism. on the Web:

• The belief that God exists but is not involved in the world. It maintains that God created all things and set the universe in motion and is no longer involved in its operation. (Compare to Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism.)

www.carm.org/dictionary/dic_c-d.htm​

I do not believe this. But I also do not believe that God made a world totally incomprehensible to us and then gave us the logical minds we have. I think Kristina P explained this well in her post, but I’m sure I’ll see you’re objection when I hit submit

Is logic true because God makes it true, or is logic true because its order is part of God’s nature? Careful how you answer, you might find yourself agreeing with Martin Luther…

I’m not sure I see a difference between these, but then I’m a scientist, not a philosopher . God makes logic true because it is a part of His Nature would be my guess.

When a scientist tells me that an organism mutated to possess wings out of necessity and survival - and not to mention in perfect dimensions to achieve necessary lift proportionate to its body weight - I become highly skeptical. Show me fossil records of “proven” failed speciations that were part of the evolutionary process and then I might raise and eyebrow. Until then, I fail to see how natural selection can be batting 1000 over the course of several millions years.

A penguin adapted to get flippers.

I would hope you believed in creationism if you call yourself a Catholic. Not “Biblical” creationism, but I would hope basic creationism.

Since sarcasm never goes over well I’ll avoide my immediate response and refer you to my previous posts about God creating things. But what those other scientists are refering to (and scorning) is biblical creationism and “creationism light” [ID] (their term not mine).