EVOLUTION: what about this

[The_Barbarian]

U

m…the movie doesn’t try to “excuse” or “trivialize” the Holocaust.

As the Anti-defamation League points out, it does. Stein tried to do what many evil and foolish people try to do; connect things they hate to the Nazis. It backfired badly on him; and it earned him the just condemnation of the Jewish people who suffered most in the Holocaust.

It just tries to cite the theory of evolution as one reason the Holocaust may have happened.

It’s a blood libel against science. Darwinists had denounced the whole idea behind the Holocaust. Darwin himself denounced such thinking. The “Final Solution” was largely taken from Martin Luther; his “The Jews and Their Lies” has his recommendations, which comprise about 90% of the Holocaust policies. The Nazis, BTW, openly credited Luther for it.

Personally, I think there might indeed be a causative link between evolution and the Holocaust, but I also know this says nothing about whether or not evolution is true.

None of the Nazis seem to have had any idea of evolutionary theory. Their ideas about eugenics, for example, are contrary to Darwinian thought.

People can act on truth in both good ways and bad ways, and it’s up to the people themselves to determine how they will act.

Perhaps, it would be good to carry the idea of personal responsibility just a bit farther, and learn some facts before accusing people of genocide.

 

[StAnastasia]

gravity is scientific fact —Evolution is scientific maybe.

You’re wrong. Gravity is not a fact – it is a theory.

 

[StAnastasia]

Okay, this is all starting to wear me out. I’m going to bow out until April, if that’s okay with everyone, because there’s going to be a conference in Rome in March on the topic of evolution anyway, and I’d like to see what shakes out of that.
evolution-rome2009.net/–Mike

Mike, as I’m a delegate to that conference, I’ll be happy to report back to you on how it went. Just have to nail down my plane ticket…

StAnastasia

 

[edwest2]

You don’t have to make that choice. A very wise and Godly man once observed that truth cannot contradict truth. Listen to him. He was John Paul II.

So is gravity. But don’t go jumping off roofs. You should learn what “theory” means in science.

What seems to rile you is that I heard all sides, and then decided what seemed right.

If truth cannot contradict truth then it must flow in both directions, not just one. Pope Benedict, referring to the widely praised, by secularists, comment of Pope John Paul II, had this to say about it: “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[mpartyka]

Darwinists had denounced the whole idea behind the Holocaust. Darwin himself denounced such thinking…None of the Nazis seem to have had any idea of evolutionary theory. Their ideas about eugenics, for example, are contrary to Darwinian thought…Perhaps, it would be good to carry the idea of personal responsibility just a bit farther, and learn some facts before accusing people of genocide.

I find it difficult to believe that the Nazis had no knowledge of evolutionary theory, even if their understanding of it was so poor and/or warped as to be unrecognizable. But my position is still the same regardless – even if the theory of evolution were in any way, shape, or form an “inspiration” for the Holocaust, that would have no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the theory.

–Mike

 

[MindOverMatter]

[
Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error.]()

You’ve got me all wrong pal. It is true that the theory of evolution has been hijacked by naturalists, and is being pushed as a triumphant alternative to belief in God. They use misleading definitions that can deceive people.
For example, one might say that fear or love evolved because it was beneficial to the organism. But anybody who knows the theory would know that such an explanation is logically invalid if what they really mean is that evolution occurs according to need. Evolution is a blind process; it needs nothing, and it has no idea of what’s going on unless you willing to admit that God is guiding those events.
I think they do it on purpose, specifically to annoy me.
But in philosophical terms, none of the naturalistic ideas that have been produced according to the theory holds any weight.

Now, about what you said about chance. First of all, there’s nothing wrong with chance so long as there are influences that encourage particular out-comes or ends. And what I mean by that is; nothing is completely random. I would argue that there is a whole lot more determinism then there is chance. There is allot more order then there is chaos. In the end; it seems evident to me that God has allowed an element of chance within reality. We have to accept that.

Secondly, where do you think all the information comes from? Or better yet; where do you think “meaning” comes from. Scientists cannot say evolution. There are specific meanings rooted in nature which are required before scientists can say anything about it. Science cannot explain why it is there, where it came from, why it works; they certainly cannot say that it is there because of “chance” or mechanistic process, since there has to be such a thing as meaning before such things can be meaningfully related or applied.
So; there is only one reasonable explanation as far as I’m concerned. The only thing that can give meaning to something is some kind of mind; regardless of the “process” through which those meanings are expressed.

Geometrically speaking; science can account for the shapes and the sizes. It can explain “clock work mechanisms”, and it can also explain the arrangement of information which gives rise to different information allowing diversity, by appealing to the principles of causality. And this is one aspect of physical reality that the sciences have mastered or are in the process of mastering. But it can never account for why any particular biological design should give rise to qualitative functions that work toward purposeful ends. It cannot explain chemistry; it can only describe what chemistry does. It cannot possibly hope to explain why any particular mutation or structure should correspond to the actuality of feelings, emotions, sight, sound, nervous systems or mechanisms; they can only explain that it does. Evolution is wholly dependent on parts that work toward purposeful and meaningful ends in order to work. It thrives on order, not chaos.

Evolution can only say that parts, meanings, and functions, are selected naturally, which only means that the process, through which meaning becomes actual, is not interfered with by some out side intelligence; but it would be a lie to say that they are ultimately “created” by evolution. The information that says an eye ought to see, or a mind ought to think, or that a brain ought to do all of the things that it does, can only be explained by that which explains the Universe as a qualitative “whole”. It’s the Universe as qualitative whole that needs to be explained, and you know what I think about that.

So it’s not the Evolutionary Theory that’s the problem. It is the naturalists that have hijacked the theory and added negative connotations to it in order to lull people in to a state of ignorance and despair. That is the problem. And I’m not going to fall for it.

Peace.

 

[StAnastasia]

Um…the movie doesn’t try to “excuse” or “trivialize” the Holocaust. It just tries to cite the theory of evolution as one reason the Holocaust may have happened. Personally, I think there might indeed be a causative link between evolution and the Holocaust, but I also know this says nothing about whether or not evolution is true. People can act on truth in both good ways and bad ways, and it’s up to the people themselves to determine how they will act.–Mike

Ben Stein lied his way through the film, particularly on the issue of the holocaust. When Peter McKnight of the Vancouver Sun pressed him on this lying about the implications of Darwin’s thought for the future, Stein’s reply "revealed his hostility toward the Anti-Defamation League more than anything else, as he told me bluntly, “It’s none of their f—ing business.”

 

[The_Barbarian]

Yeah. What business do Jews have commenting on the Holocaust?
WFTH-I

 

[The_Barbarian]

You’ve got me all wrong pal. It is true that the theory of evolution has been hijacked by naturalists, and is being pushed as a triumphant alternative to belief in God. They use misleading definitions that can deceive people.

Odd, then, that I can’t think of one really great biologist who presents it so. Dawkins does some pretty good work, and is an aggressive atheist, but even he admits that science can’t actually rule out God.

For example, one might say that fear or love evolved because it was beneficial to the organism. But anybody who knows the theory would know that such an explanation is logically invalid if what they really mean is that evolution occurs according to need.

That’s not what it says. It says natural selection tends to increase fitness. So fear has a selective value, because it induces caution. Love has a selective value, because selflessness and altruism can often increase the likelihood of having offspring survive.

Evolution is a blind process; it needs nothing, and it has no idea of what’s going on unless you willing to admit that God is guiding those events.

So is gravity. But all sorts of order arises from gravity, even if God isn’t individually sorting rocks.

Now, about what you said about chance. First of all, there’s nothing wrong with chance so long as there are influences that encourage particular out-comes or ends. And what I mean by that is; nothing is completely random.

Radioactive decay.

I would argue that there is a whole lot more determinism then there is chance. There is allot more order then there is chaos. In the end; it seems evident to me that God has allowed an element of chance within reality. We have to accept that.

Quantum events are by chance. And all other things depend on them. You might want to read Erwin Schoedinger’s “What is Life.” He figured atoms were so small because we needed a predictable universe, and by making us only notice events so large that probability made them predictable, we were insulated from the essential randomness of things.

Secondly, where do you think all the information comes from?

In evolution? Mutation. Every mutation increases the information in a population.

Or better yet; where do you think “meaning” comes from.

The observer. What I think you’re trying to get to is a final cause. That’s God. And it’s not inconsistent with science.

 

[reggieM]

Um…the movie doesn’t try to “excuse” or “trivialize” the Holocaust. It just tries to cite the theory of evolution as one reason the Holocaust may have happened. Personally, I think there might indeed be a causative link between evolution and the Holocaust …

Agreed. I thought that segment in the film was well-done. Certainly, it’s easy to see a causitive link between materialist-nihilism and mass destruction of life. The same is true with atheist-materialist Darwinism – but it does go farther with the idea that the human race can be purified and improved through a “selection process”. That is modern day eugenics.

“Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution” (Wikipedia on Eugenics)



From Darwin to Hitler

In this compelling and painstakingly researched work of intellectual history, Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany believed that Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of human life. Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism, yet simultaneously exalted evolutionary “fitness” (especially in terms of intelligence and health) as the highest arbiter of morality. Weikart concludes that Darwinism played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but also in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination, all ultimately embraced by the Nazis. He convincingly makes the disturbing argument that Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles rather than nihilistic ones. From Darwin to Hitler is a provocative yet balanced work that should encourage a rethinking of the historical impact that Darwinism had on the course of events in the twentieth century.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Agreed. I thought that segment in the film was well-done. Certainly, it’s easy to see a causitive link between materialist-nihilism and mass destruction of life.

But materialist-nihilism is opposed to and opposed by Darwinism. You’ve just picked out things you don’t like and attributed them to science.

The same is true with atheist-materialist Darwinism

You might as well say “atheist-materialist religion.” Darwin attributed the origin of life to God.

– but it does go farther with the idea that the human race can be purified and improved through a “selection process”. That is modern day eugenics.

No. Darwinians like Morgan showed that the eugenic program was scientifically insupportable. Modern eugenics focuses on things like genetic counseling for people, to understand the reproductive risks of different individuals.

 

[reggieM]

I highly recommend Expelled to anyone who hasn’t seen it yet. A number of people from my parish have seen it and everyone I talked to enjoyed the film and had positive comments. It’s a good educational tool.

 

[StAnastasia]

I highly recommend Expelled to anyone who hasn’t seen it yet. A number of people from my parish have seen it and everyone I talked to enjoyed the film and had positive comments. It’s a good educational tool.

It’s pure propaganda, useless on science, and inimical to religion.

 

[Dchsknight]

You’re wrong. Gravity is not a fact – it is a theory.

Gravity is fact. you take something you drop it, it falls. you jump off a building you fall you die. Gravity is generated by the rotation of this planet, same with the sun which is why the earth flies around and does not deviate it from. Any one who says Gravity is not fact, Go tell that to an astronauts when he leaves earth, and how much thrust and power they have to use to break free of Earth’s gravitational pull. IN FACT your right Stanastasia, it is not a fact, it is Law. Evolution is a theory. there are no true, heavy evidence that can make Evolution fact, that can not be explained in some other way with out a shadow of a doubt. For example. dogs, why are their so many kinds of dogs, not evolution Man messing with God’s design.

What about the FACT that Evolution says things evolve to survive and get better and survival of the fittest, when the second LAW of Entropy says everything is going to ****, what about that? what about the FACT that Darwin said that a single celled organisms is the simplest form of life, when in fact, it is the most complex form ever there is nothing else on this world quite like it. WHAT about the FACT that a cell need 250 proteans to survive and propagate and they all have to be in the right order. find a mathematician and ask how big the odds are for a cell to get all 250 proteans in the right order EVERY time to evolve and become a different creature.
what about the fact Every single culture has a Creation story and a evolution story. what about all the facts and data that backs up the bible and God says instead of what a old man who only went to ONE island and came up with a ridiculas idea about how animals came into being. what about the experiment that was mean to replicate the Big Bang back in the 50s that did not not work what about that? about the fact that there is something in a single cell that science can not identify, they know it is there but when they go to look it, it disappears. What about the fact of a soul, How the hell can evolution endow a soul to a fetus. How the hell does Evolution explain the complexity of a human brain and how we think. what about Imagination, none of any of those things can be explained by Evolution. But something can, and it is called the bible.

The Fact is, Man still thinks he knows better then God, and he will not submit to him. All of Evolution is man shaking his fist at God saying “I know better then you” and we come up with stories that truly belong in fiction then in science. Science is too afraid to prove any part of the bible because then Jesus is real and we need to bow to him, stead of some brainy guy who thinks he knows what happened.

I am not afraid of science i think it is Freaking amazing. what i get rilled up about is, when people trade their hearts and beliefs for a lie and follow the devil instead of God. Evolution denies God’s Complete and utter control over his creation. which he does. we have free will and we are the only ones who do, but this world is God’s creation and it is belongs to him he crontrols every single thing why would he make a process that denies his utter control. no that is man’s creation.

 

[StAnastasia]

I highly recommend Expelled to anyone who hasn’t seen it yet. A number of people from my parish have seen it and everyone I talked to enjoyed the film and had positive comments. It’s a good educational tool.

“I don’t, however, expect the producers to disavow any part of the movie because their disdain for truth comes through loud and clear. Consequently, I’m not particularly bothered by the existence of Expelled. For it displays, in a way a movie review never could, the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the ID movement which, unable to construct a convincing argument, resorts to dishonesty and deceit.”

canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=f022096b-6832-4ec1-929d-92e8bc337364&p=3

 

[mpartyka]

Gravity is generated by the rotation of this planet, same with the sun which is why the earth flies around and does not deviate it from.

Actually, gravity is a property of mass, rotating or not.

Evolution is a theory. there are no true, heavy evidence that can make Evolution fact, that can not be explained in some other way with out a shadow of a doubt.

We convict and sentence people to death on evidence that is less substantial than all that we have for evolution.

What about the FACT that Evolution says things evolve to survive and get better and survival of the fittest, when the second LAW of Entropy says everything is going to ****, what about that?

That only applies to closed systems. The earth is an open system which receives continual energy (name removed by moderator)ut from the sun.

–Mike

 

[StAnastasia]

Gravity is fact. you take something you drop it, it falls. you jump off a building you fall you die. Gravity is generated by the rotation of this planet, .

Falling is fact. Gravity is the theory that explains falling. And it is not generated by the rotation of the planet.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Odd, then, that I can’t think of one really great biologist who presents it so. Dawkins does some pretty good work, and is an aggressive atheist, but even he admits that science can’t actually rule out God.

No, but he thinks that it rules out evidence of design in so far as one can make inferences from the natural order to God. And popular TV programs on evolution, at least those ones I have watched often present or imply evolution as triumphing over Christianity. Perhaps you don’t watch TV? Saying that it don’t exist is like saying racism doesn’t exist.

That’s not what it says.

I never said that it is what it says, i said the language in which it is portrayed by some can be misleading.

It says natural selection tends to increase fitness.

Yes

So fear has a selective value, because it induces caution. Love has a selective value, because selflessness and altruism can often increase the likelihood of having offspring survive.

Yes. But it’s not ultimately created by evolution. And that’s an important thing to get across.

So is gravity. But all sorts of order arise from gravity, even if God isn’t individually sorting rocks.

Yes. And if you had read my post properly you would have understood the point I was trying to get across. You would have understood that I was not trying to imply that God is a puppeteer

Radioactive decay.

I’m not sure what you mean to imply by this. How does that contradict anything I said?

Quantum events are by chance.

You are singling out one aspect of nature. I’m talking about nature as a whole.

And all other things depend on them. You might want to read Erwin Schoedinger’s “What is Life.” He figured atoms were so small because we needed a predictable universe, and by making us only notice events so large that probability made them predictable, we were insulated from the essential randomness of things.

If I didn’t know better, I might think, by the language you are using, that you are advocating that there is no deterministic properties in nature; that it’s all just an illusion of my size. Well I say this; the fact that there are quantum events at all is not random. It determined by something.

In evolution? Mutation. Every mutation increases the information in a population.

The increase of information corresponds to mutations. That’s all. The qualities that those mutations bring about, such as feelings, mind, and emotion, is all determined by the ultimate cause of the universe, not just the mutation. It is wrong to point to the immediate causes of any thing without recognizing that things behave as they do because of the nature of the universe as a whole. The fact that there are random aspects to process biology does not change that fact. Quality is not caused by chance; it is created and determined by the ultimate, and then it is delivered through a process that has elements of chance. The idea that the process is completely random is a fallacy. For example, the fact that the 3 dimensional structure, that is the brain, “thinks”, is not an “accident”, despite its structure being the result of random variations. The brains ability to think was determined by what ever it is that caused the universe. This is the root cause of all quality and nature.

The observer.

Again you have not read nor understood properly what i have written.

So let me get this straight. The reason that the 3 dimensional structural pattern that is the eye–in connection with the brain–is as such that it sees, is because I made it up in my mind?

You have great logic.

What I think you’re trying to get to is a final cause. That’s God. And it’s not inconsistent with science.

I never said that it was.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Gravity is fact.

Evolution is a fact.

you take something you drop it, it falls. you jump off a building you fall you die.

Put a population of organisms in a new environment, the population will evolve to become better fitted. Even new structures, if necessary. Or they die out.

Gravity is generated by the rotation of this planet, same with the sun which is why the earth flies around and does not deviate it from.

:doh2: Gravity is generated by mass. And the Earth orbits the sun because it is constantly falling toward the sun as a result of the sun’s gravity. It never gets there, because it is moving at the right speed and distance that as it falls toward the sun, “down” changes, and so it has a stable orbit.

Any one who says Gravity is not fact, Go tell that to an astronauts when he leaves earth, and how much thrust and power they have to use to break free of Earth’s gravitational pull.

Gravity is a fact, as is evolution.

IN FACT your right Stanastasia, it is not a fact, it is Law.

It’s a fact. A phenomenon. There is a theory (not a law) that explains what will happen in gravity. The theory is not the phenomenon.

Evolution is a theory.

Like gravity. But it is a stronger theory than gravity, because we also know why it works.

there are no true, heavy evidence that can make Evolution fact, that can not be explained in some other way with out a shadow of a doubt. For example. dogs, why are their so many kinds of dogs,

Artificial selection. There are many wild canine species because of natural selection.

What about the FACT that Evolution says things evolve to survive and get better and survival of the fittest, when the second LAW of Entropy says everything is going to ****, what about that?

Like trees growing from seeds, or a child from a fertilized egg, entropy can be locally reduced, so long as there is an outside (name removed by moderator)ut. (for example, sunlight)

what about the FACT that Darwin said that a single celled organisms is the simplest form of life, when in fact, it is the most complex form ever there is nothing else on this world quite like it.

That’s wrong. Most multicellular organisms have three levels of organization above the cellular level. Much more complex.

WHAT about the FACT that a cell need 250 proteans to survive and propagate and they all have to be in the right order.

Well, maybe not. All the ones we see today do, or almost all of them. We don’t really yet know what the simplist possible form of life would be.

find a mathematician and ask how big the odds are for a cell to get all 250 proteans in the right order EVERY time to evolve and become a different creature.

Probability of 1.0 (in other words a sure thing). We’ve seen it happen.

what about the fact Every single culture has a Creation story and a evolution story.

Oh, I don’t know… maybe that evolution and creation are facts?

what about all the facts and data that backs up the bible and God says instead of what a old man who only went to ONE island and came up with a ridiculas idea about how animals came into being. what about the experiment that was mean to replicate the Big Bang back in the 50s that did not not work what about that?

I have no idea what you’re talking about here. Could you slow down and explain some of it?

about the fact that there is something in a single cell that science can not identify, they know it is there but when they go to look it, it disappears.

Don’t know what that is, either.

What about the fact of a soul, How the hell can evolution endow a soul to a fetus.

It can’t. Evolution can account for our bodies, but the soul is given immediately by God.

How the hell does Evolution explain the complexity of a human brain and how we think. what about Imagination, none of any of those things can be explained by Evolution.

Actually, it can. There is a discipline within psychology that studies the evolution of nervous systems.

The Fact is, Man still thinks he knows better then God, and he will not submit to him.

You’re uncomfortable with the way He did it. And you’re resisting Him. But fortunately, He won’t hold it against you. Your eternal life does not depend on your acceptance of creation.

 

[mpartyka]

Evolution can account for our bodies, but the soul is given immediately by God.

If this is so, then what I’d like to know is, what difference does having a soul make? Remember, we’re basically saying that God allowed evolution to naturally unfold until such a time as there were human beings capable of receiving souls. What difference was there, if any, between the “soulless” human population of -1 BH (Before Humans) and the “ensouled” humans of 1 AH (Anno Humanity)?

If we say, “There was no biological distinction between ‘soulless’ and ‘ensouled’ humans,” then it looks like we are inventing an excuse upon which to maintain Catholic dogma. On the other hand, if we say, “There was a biological distinction between ‘soulless’ and ‘ensouled’ humans,” then the difference between the ensouled and the soulless can be attributed purely to biology rather than to any spiritual or ephemeral quality. In the former case the soul becomes an artificial distinction, and in the latter it becomes a superfluous distinction.

Doesn’t it make more sense – isn’t it more consistent – to think of the soul as a sort of spiritual receptivity that all living things possess to some degree, and that in humans this receptivity is much, much more developed and capable than it is in any other living creature? From there, we could easily say that at some time in the past, human spiritual receptivity (i.e., “the human soul”) had developed to the point that God could invite humanity to share in the divine life via communion with His Spirit…only humanity rejected this invitation and thereby condemned itself to continue in the world of death and dying and futility from whence it originated. And this explains the need for the Son of God to come down and save humanity – because humanity would not, could not save itself via its own power.

This, to me, is the most logical-sounding reconciliation of creation and evolution that I’ve seen so far. It will be interesting to see what the conference in March 2009 brings, and what the Church makes of its findings.

–Mike