evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter tuopaolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mlchance << There are also some rather interesting critiques of the lack of logic and use of doublespeak rampant in evolutionary theory. See, for example, the ramblings of Richard Dawkins. >>

I wouldn’t recommend Dawkins for beginners. He does let his atheism get in the way of his otherwise good science.

Start with TalkOrigins, the long article by Doug Theobald has plenty of evidence, presents numerous predictions, and potential falsifications. Theobald I believe is a Christian, with a Ph.D. in chemistry.

Read a couple of these well documented articles

In all these articles you will find: good logic, excellent documentation, and thorough critiques of “creationist” claims.

The geologic column is only a big deal for “young-earthers” since they have to attempt to disprove the long geological ages normally assigned. The “geologic column doesn’t exist” claim is made by many creationist publications. If you accept an ancient earth, then no problem. 👍

Please, if you know of books that present a good case against evolution, go ahead and recommend. I pointed out that Behe is basically a theistic evolutionist in case you didn’t know. 😛

Phil P
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
Please, if you know of books that present a good case against evolution, go ahead and recommend. I pointed out that Behe is basically a theistic evolutionist in case you didn’t know. 😛
Click to expand...
Young-earthers indeed do not have legs to stand on. The Earth is not young.

That point aside, people like Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould represent the mainstream of evolutionary theory, and they’re at least honest enough to admit that mainstream evolutionary theory makes God irrelevant at best.

There are other people working in a vein similar to Behe. It is noteworthy that mainstream evolutionists cannot cogently answer Behe’s objection (i.e., his observations based on irreducible complexity). Of course, Johnson is good for a logical critique of mainstream evolutionary theory. Karl Popper’s seminal works on the philosophy of science compared to mainstream evolutionary theory make for an interesting read, and clearly highlight the deficiencies with the latter.

I’m not saying evolution is impossible, but mainstream evolutionary theory on the macro scale is little more than an extended tautology combined with a polemic against theism.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
mlchance:
There are other people working in a vein similar to Behe. It is noteworthy that mainstream evolutionists cannot cogently answer Behe’s objection (i.e., his observations based on irreducible complexity).
Click to expand...
Sure they can — for each example of a system that is “irreducibly complex” they need only imagine a “reducible” chain of processes that could have produced the desired system. There are many good and cogent refutations of Behe on the web:
Behe reviews
Irreducible complexity is only a failure of the imagination and/or lack of complete knowledge.
 
40.png
wanerious:
Sure they can — for each example of a system that is “irreducibly complex” they need only imagine a “reducible” chain of processes that could have produced the desired system.
Click to expand...
As Gaunilo pointed out to Anselm: Imagining doesn’t make it so. To solve the obstacles posed to mainstream evolutionary theory requires more than just some imaginative hand-waving. It requires actual science with actual, reproducible results.

Thank you for reinforcing my point that mainstream evolutionary theory is the scientific equivalent of a parlor trick.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
mlchance:
As Gaunilo pointed out to Anselm: Imagining doesn’t make it so. To solve the obstacles posed to mainstream evolutionary theory requires more than just some imaginative hand-waving. It requires actual science with actual, reproducible results.

Thank you for reinforcing my point that mainstream evolutionary theory is the scientific equivalent of a parlor trick.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
No, that’s a neat sidestep, but that’s not the point. The processes to imagine are not ones to overcome evolutionary problems, but to address the impossibility of intelligent design assertions. In Behe’s canonical mousetrap example, one need only imagine a somewhat inferior mousetrap composed of the same parts, perhaps in a different configuration, to show that there is at least one possible evolutionary pathway. If the assertion is that there is no possible way, then even just a possible conceptual example is enough.

It seems to me a little uncharitable to suppose that the life’s work of thousands of biologists, zoologists, geologists, and so on can be so easily seen through by those outside the field. It is worth considering the possibility that the scientists indeed have science on their side, and it is the intelligent-design folks from the outside who are attempting parlor tricks to gain popular support for assertions widely rebutted by scientists.
 
Latest Richard Dawkins is out, beware 😛 :mad: :eek:

If, as returning host, I reflect on this whole pilgrimage, my overwhelming reaction is one of amazement. Amazement at the extravaganza of detail that we have seen; amazement, too, at the very fact that there are any such details to be had at all, on any planet. The universe could so easily have remained lifeless and simple - just physics and chemistry, the scattered dust of the cosmic explosion that gave birth to time and space. The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice. Even that is not the end of the matter. Not only did evolution happen: it eventually led to beings capable of comprehending the process, and even of comprehending the process by which they comprehend it.

Excerpt from new book: The Ancestor’s Tale

Phil P
 
Let us assume, for the sake of the arguement, that evolution is right. We evolved from somewhere.

OK.

What somewhere?

When?

How?

And the biggie…

WHAT MADE IT START EVOLVING IN THE FIRST PLACE?
 
<< WHAT MADE IT START EVOLVING IN THE FIRST PLACE? >>

Well of course for Dawkins we’re stuck with “the universe came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing.” As William Lane Craig says, a kind of “Gettysburg Address of atheism.” 😃

What I think best fits with the scientific evidence and Catholic teaching is that: God initiated the universe with the Big Bang ex nihilo, God was (somehow) responsible for the origin of first life, and God (somehow) intervened at the creation of Adam/Eve or at the very least their spiritual souls. Nature (i.e. macroevolution) does the rest.

But I don’t claim the “God intervening” part is scientific, since to work science is methodologically naturalistic. God (or an “intelligent designer”) being supernatural cannot be tested, measured, or falsified by the scientific method. For more see my review of Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel which is now showing up at Amazon.com

Phil Porvaznik
 
40.png
Toni:
Correct me if I am wrong, but a year or two ago I remember hearing that the Pope opened the study of evolution up for discussion stating it does not matter how we got here, the important thing was that God breathed the soul into Man.:confused:
Click to expand...
Unless God actually tells us how we got here we will never really know. All I know is that when I think about eternity , from the non-starting point to the non-ending point, I realize that the creator has abilities that we can not even imagine.

But when you come right down to it, it doesn’t matter if we evr figure out how we got to this point. What is important is that we treat the least like they might be Jesus , nothing else really matters.

Peace
 
May I raise a tangential question? My 11-year old sees a conflict with prehistory and Adam and Eve. Specifically he asks: Were Adam and Eve “cavemen?” Did the live in the Stone Age? Were they “prehistoric man.” He is understanding the Adam and Eve story as recorded history. Is this where the “conflict” is?

Chris C.
 
Chris C.:
May I raise a tangential question? My 11-year old sees a conflict with prehistory and Adam and Eve. Specifically he asks: Were Adam and Eve “cavemen?” Did the live in the Stone Age? Were they “prehistoric man.” He is understanding the Adam and Eve story as recorded history. Is this where the “conflict” is?

Chris C.
Click to expand...
I think so. My son also has raised questions, and my answer to him was that the point of the early Genesis chapters is to illustrate the right relationship between God, His Creation, and Man. Asking if they were cave men is to miss the point. After Jesus illustrates his teachings with parables, for example, no one should question him as to “what was the seed-sower’s name? What kind of crop was it? Even if you cast seeds upon stone, could they not be washed off and sprout anyway?”
 
Well–Adam and Eve were real, and we (and all men) are descended from them. I think i have to revise or clarify my post. Adam and Eve are recorded history. Now, how do we reconcile that with prehistory, stone-age man? It seems to me that the only way to do this is to say that these creatures did not have spirits.

Chris C.
 
Chris C.:
Well–Adam and Eve were real, and we (and all men) are descended from them. I think i have to revise or clarify my post. Adam and Eve are recorded history. Now, how do we reconcile that with prehistory, stone-age man? It seems to me that the only way to do this is to say that these creatures did not have spirits.

Chris C.
Click to expand...
How can we say that? If they were around when the OT says they were, they were around after some gene pools moved out of the african/middle eastern area and if those people moved who didn’t have souls would the people who did descend from them not have souls either?

Peace
 
To deny the existence of Adam and Eve is to deny the Fall is to deny the need for the Incarnation is to deny the Incarnation. We have to begin with the fact that Adam and Eve were real human person and the first human persons. Now maybe the claims of some anthropologists can be reconciled with this reality, maybe they cannot. But even if they cannot it doesn’t matter.

Chris C.
 
<< We have to begin with the fact that Adam and Eve were real human person and the first human persons. Now maybe the claims of some anthropologists can be reconciled with this reality, maybe they cannot. But even if they cannot it doesn’t matter. >>

I think it does matter since as Pope John Paul II says, truth cannot contradict truth. God would have created all these creatures (whether directly or by evolution). See my new thread When Did Adam/Eve Live?

Phil P
 
Richard Lamb:
I think that some evolution has taken place in nature is pretty much a given. I mean in my life time I have seen people get on average taller. It was not too long ago that 6 feet was considered tall now it is not so tall after all. That is evolution I think.
Click to expand...
You think you’ve seen human evolution in your lifetime??? :ehh: Think again. I don’t think even the most radical evolutionist would even entertain the thought of evolution in man occurring so fast…
 
Amen Chris C. post #74. No Adam & Eve = no fall of man= no need for Jesus. How clever of Satan to make us think that’s true. Sorry Satan, you lose… you’ll never convince me! CM <><
 
carol marie << No Adam & Eve = no fall of man= no need for Jesus. How clever of Satan to make us think that’s true. Sorry Satan, you lose… you’ll never convince me! >>

Okay, I’ll ask you: When do you think Adam and Eve lived?

This attitude of “science is satanic” is not a very healthy one to have. It’s good to think about these things and try to reconcile if we can. Or else check your brain at the door as you and Chris would have it. :rolleyes:

Phil P
 
Philvaz,
Not all science is satanic but surly you’d agree that if Satan can convince everyone that we evolved out of nothing and scurried up onto the shore about a gazillion years ago then who gives a hoot about “God” or the need for a Savior since we are all so intelligent & evolved on our own. “God” is reduced to just another fairy tale for those of us who “check our brains at the door.”

I wasn’t around when Adam & Eve were created and I have no idea when or where they lived - it doesn’t matter much to me. What does matter is what I’ve read in the Bible (if you don’t have one I’d encourage you to get one - it’s a great book, turn to the begining- the Book of Genesis, and you’ll read the entire Creation account. I would also encourage you to look up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church - start around section 355 and keep reading through 421. It’s great stuff- tells all about Adam & Eve, the fall of man & the need for a Savior. Although I’m not Catholic (yet - start my RCIA classes next week) I appreciate that book so much because it explains the Catholic faith so well and I assume it was written by really smart people so I don’t have to worry about sorting all these big troubling questions on my own… something that could be very difficult since, as you so wisely pointed out, I have no brain.
God Bless you. <>< CM
 
carol marie << something that could be very difficult since, as you so wisely pointed out, I have no brain. >>

Hee hee. 😃 You have a brain, its around 1350 cc, just don’t check it at the door. Have fun in R.C.I.A.

You were probably one of the people who voted “evolution is definitely false” without even looking into the evidence for it. The Catechism deals with Adam/Eve in that section you mentioned, but also seems to affirm evolution is (at least) probably true (Catechism 283-284). There’s the tension I’m trying to resolve. Perhaps a more “symbolical” understanding of the early chapters of Genesis will resolve this… :confused:

Phil P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top