"Evolution" vs. "Neo-Darwinism" vs. "ID"

[edwest2]

While I am no great fan of Richard Dawkins, the “malicious puppeteer” has aptly been described by Richard:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

This is of course blasphemous, which is why Christians must strive to distance themselves from any portrayal of God as orchestrating terrestrial and human events.

StAnastasia

The Christian recognizes that God has spoken through the prophets. Jesus also spoke about coming future events as well. In the form of Jesus Christ, God the Father sent His Son to be the most transformative person in human history.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

The Christian recognizes that God has spoken through the prophets. Jesus also spoke about coming future events as well. In the form of Jesus Christ, God the Father sent His Son to be the most transformative person in human history.Peace,
Ed

Quite true.

 

[reggieM]

Men speak of nature — but nature, its order and symmetry, the complex human body, all manifest the divine wisdom, the divine intelligence and all-absorbing beauty of God.
To the metaphysical proof, add the physical argument. The order of the universe … the millions of constellations moving about the heavens in perfect harmony, all point to a Supreme Intelligence who not only made this world, but who also directs and sustains it.
Cicero (106-43 B. C.), famed Roman senator and pagan philosopher, declared: “When we look up to heaven and consider the heavenly bodies, what can be clearer and more obvious than that there is a Divinity, a most exalted Mind, by whom these orbs are ruled?” In fact, science points out more marvels in the order of creation in a minute than the atheist can explain in a century.

For Them Also, A Resume of Catholic Doctrine, Rev. Charles Francis Buddy, Bishop of San Diego, CA, pgs 8,10

 

[reggieM]

If a ship sails on its way and arrives safely at its destination, we conclude that it had a clever pilot. To say that the stars of the heaven of themselves direct their course, is as foolish as it would be to say that a ship had started from New York, sailed round the world, and returned safely without any one to guide it. Cicero said long ago, ” When we contemplate the heavens, we arrive at the conviction that they are all guided by a Being of surpassing skill.” In all that is upon the earth we see traces of design and of a most wise Designer in the construction of the bodies of animals, and of the bodies of men, in the -succession of the seasons, in trees and plants …As it would be impossible that the letters of the alphabet should be grouped together by mere chance in the order of the ” Iliad,” so it is impossible that the arrangements of the universe could have come about by chance, and without the knowledge and direction of a mighty intelligence.

The Catechism Explained: An Exhaustive Explanation of the Catholic Religion Revs. Francis Spirago & Richard Clark

 

[MindOverMatter]

If a ship sails on its way and arrives safely at its destination, we conclude that it had a clever pilot. To say that the stars of the heaven of themselves direct their course
​

I am not aware that any modern catechism rules against evolution. Correct me if i am wrong but didn’t the Pope say something to the effect of evolution being responsible for the body, but not the soul? As i might be wrong I am going to search for a proper link so that you can all see that plain and clear. But i think that it all comes down to interpretation. Of course the stars do not direct themselves, but rather they develop and move according to the principles of their beings. Do you deny that nature develops and moves according to the principles of their beings? If not, then you believe in a puppeteer. But if you accept that there is in fact such a thing as natural events, then you will have to accept that there is an element of chance involved. We still see that the natural principles or symmetries of nature are as such that despite chance everything tends towards order and meaningful ends rather then disorder and irrational ends; and it is this fact that gives a human being a reason to believe in a designer. But you still have to accept that this is achieved through secondary causes as well as the first cause or principle of being. Its the same with biological events. If you don’t believe in a puppeteer God that controls the movements of everything, then you have to accept that sight modifications can lead - over time - to large modifications in a biological organism; to the extent that we are left with a different species. I mean what is the point of God creating DNA if it wasn’t for the purpose of biological development and change?​

 

[ricmat]

rant mode = on.

If Newton had concluded his experiments and observations regarding the planetary orbits by saying “The reason that the planets are where they are is just plain chance” - that would have been bad for science. Instead he said “God did it. I wonder just exactly how God did it.”

Fortunately, he believed in a God that was knowable and that had created a universe that was knowable - and predictable. And he continued his research, and gave us the fundamental law of gravitation.

Today we have scientists who say that the most complex beings in the universe came about by just plain chance. [note: increasing complexity cannot be caused by natural selection, the new complexity must already be there for natural selection to actually select.] The atheists say that there is no designer at all. Many theists say that if there is a designer (artisan), he cannot be known through his works - contrary to what God asks us to do in Wisdom chapter 13. We have Catholic theologian saying that we can’t believe OT nonsense because the God of the OT doesn’t meet their personal specifications for goodness or holiness. (Tell me again, what was the sin of Adam and Eve?)

And a good friend and confidante of StA (Fr. George Coyne) who believes in God (at this point anyhow) says that even God could not have known the outcome of evolution (because of chance). God, it seems, is less powerful than chance.

One cannot create something greater than ones self. But they think that “chance” can create complex life up to and including man. And even then, chance does it without God’s guidance - or fingerprints.

Lord help us.

rant mode = off.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Fortunately, he believed in a God that was knowable and that had created a universe that was knowable - and predictable. And he continued his research, and gave us the fundamental law of gravitation.

Why come up with the law of gravity if its God that’s holding the planets together. Why not just say that God did it?

 

[reggieM]

Why come up with the law of gravity if its God that’s holding the planets together. Why not just say that God did it?

Human beings are not reducible to matter and physical laws. So, when making claims about the origin of human beings – one cannot simply point to natural processes. Something more is needed.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Human beings are not reducible to matter and physical laws. So, when making claims about the origin of human beings – one cannot simply point to natural processes. Something more is needed.

One cannot merely say that God did it either. Science has nothing to say about the existence of the soul.

 

[MindOverMatter]

One cannot create something greater than ones self. But they think that “chance” can create complex life up to and including man. And even then, chance does it without God’s guidance - or fingerprints.

Lord help us.

rant mode = off.

Just because something is a natural event, does not mean that it occurred by chance alone, and chance can only truly exist on a foundation of order. Evolution admits that there are random factors involved, but there are also strong determinative factors involved like the environment. Evolution thrives on order. The less chaos and chance involved the greater the possibility that something will evolve. Also if there is not enough chance or randomness then this can hinder biological mutation. Biological evolution is determined by a balance of different factors.

Feel free to correct me if i am wrong.

 

[ricmat]

If Newton had concluded his experiments and observations regarding the planetary orbits by saying “The reason that the planets are where they are is just plain chance” - that would have been bad for science. Instead he said “God did it. I wonder just exactly how God did it.”

Why come up with the law of gravity if its God that’s holding the planets together. Why not just say that God did it?

Because Newton, and myself are looking for how God did it, as I mentioned in my original quote above.

To say that chance did it actually leads nowhere. To investigate how God did it does lead somewhere, as Newton proves.

 

[ricmat]

Originally Posted by ricmat forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*
One cannot create something greater than ones self. But they think that “chance” can create complex life up to and including man. And even then, chance does it without God’s guidance - or fingerprints.

Lord help us.

rant mode = off.
MINDOVER MATTER wrote:

Just because something is a natural event, does not mean that it occurred by chance alone, and chance can only truly exist on a foundation of order. Evolution admits that there are random factors involved, but there are also strong determinative factors involved like the environment. Evolution thrives on order. The less chaos and chance involved the greater the possibility that something will evolve. Also if there is not enough chance or randomness then this can hinder biological mutation. Biological evolution is determined by a balance of different factors.

Feel free to correct me if i am wrong.

Ricmat wrote:

Natural events are based on natural laws (excepting miracles, of course). The driving force of the TOE is random (chance) mutations. As I also stated in my original post, the environment cannot select or filter something that doesn’t already exist. For something more complex to come into nature to be selected requires, by the TOE, chance mutations to occur.

Balance? No.

You NEED the chance mutations to occur before anything happens. By way of contrast, if you had “designed” or “guided” mutations, you could actually do away with the environment altogether. Natural selection does not create new complexity (although of course it might select it if it has already come to exist.)

BTW sorry for the formatting issues.

 

[ricmat]

Also if there is not enough chance or randomness then this can hinder biological mutation. Biological evolution is determined by a balance of different factors.

Feel free to correct me if i am wrong.

Also, a while ago (years?) I presented the following scenario to someone else on CAF. I’ll try to reconstruct a short version.

Suppose that you are given the task that over a period of the next 30 years, you are to take 100 horses and come up with the largest horses you can (to replace the Budweiser Clydesdales who have been murdered by terrorists). Would you turn your 100 horses loose on the range, let natural selection work, then round up the biggest ones 30 years later. Or would you design a selective breeding program to guide certain large males to certain large females, and then select the largest ones to send to Budweiser?

My opponent responded with a diversion about how great Natural Selection was, yada, yada, yada. Would you like to answer the question for yourself perhaps?

 

[reggieM]

One cannot merely say that God did it either. Science has nothing to say about the existence of the soul.

Why cannot a Catholic state that God created the human soul?

 

[tjm190]

You would design a breeding process- natural selection gives you the horses best fit to survive. In this case, that’s not what you’re looking for, so something else would be needed

 

[Shaken]

How about this: the 10 commandments are crucial to human evolution (if there is such a thing). They are one of those “tools” of the Creator designed to refine humanity toward an envisioned perfection.

 

[ricmat]

Also, a while ago (years?) I presented the following scenario to someone else on CAF. I’ll try to reconstruct a short version.

Suppose that you are given the task that over a period of the next 30 years, you are to take 100 horses and come up with the largest horses you can (to replace the Budweiser Clydesdales who have been murdered by terrorists). Would you turn your 100 horses loose on the range, let natural selection work, then round up the biggest ones 30 years later. Or would you design a selective breeding program to guide certain large males to certain large females, and then select the largest ones to send to Budweiser?

My opponent responded with a diversion about how great Natural Selection was, yada, yada, yada. Would you like to answer the question for yourself perhaps?

You would design a breeding process- natural selection gives you the horses best fit to survive. In this case, that’s not what you’re looking for, so something else would be needed

Thank you for your response. It seems that at least we can agree that a designer (in this case, the selective breeder) is sometimes better than natural selection. One point of my example was the limited time available, and the specific outcome needed.

One thing I’ve noticed here is that the random-evolution folks will vigorously deny that any significant random-mutation evolution would take place over say, 5000 years (going back to some comments regarding Noah’s few animal types evolving to fill the earth). I agree with that incidentally.

And those same folks are absolutely positively sure that random-mutation based evolution from either the first cell (or muck) to complex life actually occurred over 3 billion years. And the main argument is basically that “Here we are so it must have happened.” My quibble with that argument is not that it happened, but that it happened merely from random mutations. I really don’t think that 3 billion years is that long, especially when talking about life that is already pretty complex, has long time periods between generations, and small population sizes.

I know that we’ve argued about this before, so I won’t belabor the point. But anyway, thank you for honestly answering my original question. And if I haven’t said it recently, Signature in the Cell is a great book. (No, I’m not the author, and I don’t work for the publishing company )