Explaining Darwinism to an Accountant

[Mersenne]

It is, unless you think God is not supernatural. But if you don’t, you have your own unique definition of God.

If you had follow the conversation I was having at all, yes, we were specifically making a distinction between supernatural and non-supernatural gods. And my dictionary doesn’t have the word supernatural in the definition of god at all.

Of course. But he does admit that a good case could be made for a God.

Potentially, and it’s not anything like a god as you define it. It’s a deistic god.

 

[The_Barbarian]

If you had follow the conversation I was having at all, yes, we were specifically making a distinction between supernatural and non-supernatural gods.

Do you make distinctions between material and non-material rocks, too?

And my dictionary doesn’t have the word supernatural in the definition of god at all.

**god
noun

1. the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions
2. any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force [syn: deity] ** - Wordnet

Hmmm… let’s see…

**God
God\ (g[o^]d), n. [AS. god; akin to OS. & D. god, OHG. got, G. gott, Icel. gu[eth], go[eth], Sw. & Dan. gud, Goth. gup, prob. orig. a p. p. from a root appearing in Skr. h=u], p. p. h=u]ta, to call upon, invoke, implore. [root]30. Cf. Goodbye, Gospel, Gossip.]

1. A being conceived of as possessing supernatural power, and to be propitiated by sacrifice, worship, etc.; a divinity; a deity; an object of worship; an idol.

He maketh a god, and worshipeth it. --Is. xliv. 15.

The race of Israel . . . bowing lowly down To bestial gods. --Milton.

1. The Supreme Being; the eternal and infinite Spirit, the Creator, and the Sovereign of the universe; Jehovah. ** Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary

Barbarian observes:
Of course. But he does admit that a good case could be made for a God.

Potentially, and it’s not anything like a god as you define it. It’s a deistic god.

Perhaps you don’t know what “Deistic” means. A deistic God is a supernatural entity that creates the universe and then leaves it alone to proceed as it might.

Deism only rejects supernatural revelation, not a supernatural creator.

 

[edwest2]

That isn’t even close to true. We are gaining more evidence all the time that Darwin was right. It’s really too bad that people think the theory of evolution is incompatible with religion because it isn’t at all.

Holding on to a religion that requires ignorance of established science is a very bad thing to do. That religion isn’t worth much because as we learn more about the natural world (universe) the religion is gradually destroyed.

Christianity need not be damaged by Darwin’s idea unless it’s an uninformed brand of Christianity.

Why are you so concerned about religion? If all the evidence is there, then it should be self-evident. Your comments are not about science at all.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Mersenne]

Do you make distinctions between material and non-material rocks, too?

If someone is claiming non-material rocks exist, I certainly do.

**god
noun

1. the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions
2. any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force [syn: deity] ** - Wordnet

So how many dictionaries did you hit before you found one that jived with your ideas? The first 7 I looked at, including the one I have at home, don’t use the word supernatural.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/god

God is not necessarily defined as supernatural. Even if it is, I doubt that’s the way dawkins intended it. Even if it is, then he’s wrong. It’s a very silly line of reasoning you’re pushing here.

Perhaps you don’t know what “Deistic” means. A deistic God is a supernatural entity that creates the universe and then leaves it alone to proceed as it might.

Deism only rejects supernatural revelation, not a supernatural creator.

Incorrect. See the following link

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Either way, it’s irrelevent, there are many different forms of diesm. The point is that diesm is nothing like the christian conception of a god. It’s a god who doesn’t care about you or listen to your thoughts or any such thing.

 

[Namesake]

Why are you so concerned about religion? If all the evidence is there, then it should be self-evident. Your comments are not about science at all.

I am concerned about religion that refuses to accept the way the universe really works. I am concerned about religious points of view that insist on ignorance of the natural world. I believe that we should accept what we learn about the natural world and we should find God in the amazing facts we discover. I think that people who reject what we can learn are very much anti-God because He created the universe and He gave us the intellect to find out about it.

If people use their religion to reject what God has given us we are no better than sub-human species.

 

[reggieM]

I am concerned about religion that refuses to accept the way the universe really works. I am concerned about religious points of view that insist on ignorance of the natural world. I believe that we should accept what we learn about the natural world and we should find God in the amazing facts we discover. I think that people who reject what we can learn are very much anti-God because He created the universe and He gave us the intellect to find out about it.

If people use their religion to reject what God has given us we are no better than sub-human species.

These are your personal judgements and opinions and they should be respected as such.

But I believe you asserted earlier that science can not provide a complete understanding of the universe. Your view conflicts with scientists who argue otherwise.

So, we can see that your opinion is one of many even within the evolutionist community.

As such, this is your personal view. It’s not even representative of mainstream, orthodox Darwinism (as in Richard Dawkins’ view, e.g. that science is capable of fully understanding the universe.).

In evolutionary terms, a sub-human species is no “worse” than humans. There is no better or worse in evolutionary terms – only greater survivability or worse (supposedly).

I do agree that we should find God in the amazing facts that we discover and that was a very good way to put it.

But I think most Catholics who doubt or question the validity of Darwinian theory do not find evolutionists’ ideas to be fact-based but rather based on conjectures and story-telling.

 

[wildleafblower]

"No Opposition Between Faith’s Understanding of Creation and the Evidence of the Empirical Sciences"

VATICAN CITY, OCT. 31, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Here is the address Benedict XVI gave today upon receiving in audience participants in the plenary of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

---

Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am happy to greet you, the members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, on the occasion of your Plenary Assembly, and I thank Professor Nicola Cabibbo for the words he has kindly addressed to me on your behalf.

In choosing the topic Scientific Insight into the Evolution of the Universe and of Life, you seek to focus on an area of enquiry which elicits much interest. In fact, many of our contemporaries today wish to reflect upon the ultimate origin of beings, their cause and their end, and the meaning of human history and the universe.

In this context, questions concerning the relationship between science’s reading of the world and the reading offered by Christian Revelation naturally arise. My predecessors Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II noted that there is no opposition between faith’s understanding of creation and the evidence of the empirical sciences. Philosophy in its early stages had proposed images to explain the origin of the cosmos on the basis of one or more elements of the material world. This genesis was not seen as a creation, but rather a mutation or transformation; it involved a somewhat horizontal interpretation of the origin of the world. A decisive advance in understanding the origin of the cosmos was the consideration of being qua being and the concern of metaphysics with the most basic question of the first or transcendent origin of participated being. In order to develop and evolve, the world must first be, and thus have come from nothing into being. It must be created, in other words, by the first Being who is such by essence.

To state that the foundation of the cosmos and its developments is the provident wisdom of the Creator is not to say that creation has only to do with the beginning of the history of the world and of life. It implies, rather, that the Creator founds these developments and supports them, underpins them and sustains them continuously. Thomas Aquinas taught that the notion of creation must transcend the horizontal origin of the unfolding of events, which is history, and consequently all our purely naturalistic ways of thinking and speaking about the evolution of the world. Thomas observed that creation is neither a movement nor a mutation. It is instead the foundational and continuing relationship that links the creature to the Creator, for he is the cause of every being and all becoming (cf. Summa Theologiae, I, q.45, a. 3).

To “evolve” literally means “to unroll a scroll”, that is, to read a book. The imagery of nature as a book has its roots in Christianity and has been held dear by many scientists. Galileo saw nature as a book whose author is God in the same way that Scripture has God as its author. It is a book whose history, whose evolution, whose “writing” and meaning, we “read” according to the different approaches of the sciences, while all the time presupposing the foundational presence of the author who has wished to reveal himself therein. This image also helps us to understand that the world, far from originating out of chaos, resembles an ordered book; it is a cosmos. Notwithstanding elements of the irrational, chaotic and the destructive in the long processes of change in the cosmos, matter as such is “legible”. It has an inbuilt “mathematics”. The human mind therefore can engage not only in a “cosmography” studying measurable phenomena but also in a “cosmology” discerning the visible inner logic of the cosmos. We may not at first be able to see the harmony both of the whole and of the relations of the individual parts, or their relationship to the whole. Yet, there always remains a broad range of intelligible events, and the process is rational in that it reveals an order of evident correspondences and undeniable finalities: in the inorganic world, between microstructure and macrostructure; in the organic and animal world, between structure and function; and in the spiritual world, between knowledge of the truth and the aspiration to freedom. Experimental and philosophical inquiry gradually discovers these orders; it perceives them working to maintain themselves in being, defending themselves against imbalances, and overcoming obstacles. And thanks to the natural sciences we have greatly increased our understanding of the uniqueness of humanity’s place in the cosmos.

The distinction between a simple living being and a spiritual being that is capax Dei, points to the existence of the intellective soul of a free transcendent subject. Thus the Magisterium of the Church has constantly affirmed that “every spiritual soul is created immediately by God – it is not ‘produced’ by the parents – and also that it is immortal” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 366). This points to the distinctiveness of anthropology, and invites exploration of it by modern thought.

Distinguished Academicians, I wish to conclude by recalling the words addressed to you by my predecessor Pope John Paul II in November 2003: “scientific truth, which is itself a participation in divine Truth, can help philosophy and theology to understand ever more fully the human person and God’s Revelation about man, a Revelation that is completed and perfected in Jesus Christ. For this important mutual enrichment in the search for the truth and the benefit of mankind, I am, with the whole Church, profoundly grateful”.

Upon you and your families, and all those associated with the work of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, I cordially invoke God’s blessings of wisdom and peace.
zenit.org/article-24120?l=english
http://www.zenit.org/article-24120?l=english

 

[reggieM]

Since Dawkins seems to be of interest here, of late, here’s an article that just appeared today which discusses many of the issues that we’ve touched upon, plus a few more. Like this one…

This is another wedge that atheists are using to separate God and humanity.

That humans are special is obvious in any interpretation, literalistic, metaphorical, allegorical, or otherwise of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

That was a fascinating article.
Atheists are, indeed, trying to separate God and humanity. The “specialness” of humanity is a problem for them.
Interestingly, Mr. Dawkins hopes for a sub-human species that can breed with humans. I would tend to agree with him that such an interbreeding is what one might expect to find in abundance, except that evolution has stopped for both of these species.

But the blog in question states:

And there is no evidence that there ever was a hybrid species that could interbreed with both chimps and modern human beings.

So, Mr. Dawkins is dreaming for something that is impossible (supposedly) even in materialistic-evolutionary terms.

Thus, the contradictions and outright errors that are passed off as evolutionism go on and on – without even being questioned for the most part.

 

[reggieM]

We are gaining more evidence all the time that Darwin was right. It’s really too bad that people think the theory of evolution is incompatible with religion because it isn’t at all.

You’re making two entirely separate points here.

First, I don’t agree that we’re gaining more evidence that Darwin was right. On the contrary, more and more of Darwin’s 18th century notions are being refuted. He knew nothing about bio-chemistry so his writings are of little consequence in that field alone. As I posted earlier, even his conjectures on the evolution of the giraffe are being refuted by his own disciples.

Regarding the compatiblity of religion and evolution, I’d really like to hear your views on that.

How, precisely, was God involved in the creation of the univese, life and the development of human life?

Where in the peer-reviewed scientific literature does it explain how God’s influence affected the development of nature?

 

[reggieM]

wildleafblower:
Wildleafblower,

For some reason, you embed your own responses in the quoted text. This means that I cannot hit the quote button to capture the text you posted in reply to my comments.

I’m not sure why you do that. Usually, just the text that is quoted uses the quote feature and the new text falls outside of the quoted part – that way, the next reply can quote what you said.

 

[The_Barbarian]

But I think most Catholics who doubt or question the validity of Darwinian theory do not find evolutionists’ ideas to be fact-based but rather based on conjectures and story-telling.

Not surprisingly, they are the ones who know least about the theory, or the evidence for it.

Why not pick something in evolutionary theory, and we can talk about the evidence for it?

 

[Namesake]

These are your personal judgements and opinions and they should be respected as such.

But I believe you asserted earlier that science does not provide a complete understanding of the universe. Your view conflicts with scientists who argue otherwise.

So, we can see that your opinion is one of many even within the evolutionist community.

As such, this is your personal view. It’s not even representative of mainstream, orthodox Darwinism (as in Richard Dawkins’ view).

In evolutionary terms, a sub-human species is no “worse” than humans. There is no better or worse in evolutionary terms – only greater survivability or worse (supposedly).

I do agree that we should find God in the amazing facts that we discover and that was a very good way to put it.

But I think most Catholics who doubt or question the validity of Darwinian theory do not find evolutionists’ ideas to be fact-based but rather based on conjectures and story-telling.

You are so very much in error. Evolution science is about as close as science comes to “settled science”. It’s in dispute as much as the theory of gravity.

I know of no scientists who propose that science gives us a complete explanation of everything in the universe. Lots of very bright people are working on an equation to wrap it all up in a neat theory but it looks like that is a long ways away. String theory might do the job but so far it’s very theoretical and far from finished.

Albert Einstein worked for many years trying to tie it all together and he failed. Some physicists believe we can never get it all in one package and I tend to agree with that based on what I understand about quantum mechanics.

That’s really not the point. We don’t need all the answers for evolution theory to be an operationally valid basis for biological science. We are learning all the time, actually every day. What we know to be sound gives us the ability to develop wonderful improvements in human life right now. Not all the answers, but alot. Same with physics. We know enough to get involved in very important research like supercolliders and space exploration.

Science gives us serious information and that doesn’t conflict with religion unless your religion demands ignorance.

 

[The_Barbarian]

First, I don’t agree that we’re gaining more evidence that Darwin was right.

Let’s see… Since Darwin…

Explanation for the persistence of new mutations. Mendel explained why evolution can use random mutations. (inheritance is particulate, and therefore genes don’t get diluited)

Direct observation of speciation. DeVries, 1904.

Fossil series of gradual evolution (horses, ca. 1947)

Molecular evidence for the mechanism of mutation. (Watson and Crick, molecular biology of the gene)

Phylogenies based on DNA and other molecules closely match phylogenies based on fossil and anatomical data.

Numerous predicted transitionals are found in the fossil record, including:

Dinosaur-Bird
Ungulate-Whale
Reptile-Mammal
Lizard-Snake
Fish-Tetrapod
(List goes on for a very long time)

G.H. Hardy and Wilhelm Weinberg demonstrate how alleles sort in a population, (Hardy-Weinberg principle)

Natural Selection directly observed in wild. (Peter and Rosemary Grant, in the Galapagos Islands)

Directly observed favorable mutations,(including those in humans)

Direct observation of the evolution of irreducible complexity (Barry Hall in E. coli)

That’s just a few. Would you like some more?

On the contrary, more and more of Darwin’s 18th century notions are being refuted.

Some are. As you might know, he thought heredity was humoral, hence the great help Mendel might have been to him, if he had known about his work. He also thought that some acquired traits could be inherited.

But the four points of his theory are still firmly established by evidence. Do you know what they are?

How, precisely, was God involved in the creation of the univese, life and the development of human life?

He created the universe, and from that, He created all other things. Evolution is just one of the ways He did some of it.

Where in the peer-reviewed scientific literature does it explain how God’s influence affected the development of nature?

Nowhere. Science is much too weak a method to study the supernatural.

 

[Namesake]

These are your personal judgements and opinions and they should be respected as such.

But I believe you asserted earlier that science can not provide a complete understanding of the universe. Your view conflicts with scientists who argue otherwise.

So, we can see that your opinion is one of many even within the evolutionist community.

As such, this is your personal view. It’s not even representative of mainstream, orthodox Darwinism (as in Richard Dawkins’ view, e.g. that science is capable of fully understanding the universe.).

In evolutionary terms, a sub-human species is no “worse” than humans. There is no better or worse in evolutionary terms – only greater survivability or worse (supposedly).

I do agree that we should find God in the amazing facts that we discover and that was a very good way to put it.

But I think most Catholics who doubt or question the validity of Darwinian theory do not find evolutionists’ ideas to be fact-based but rather based on conjectures and story-telling.

What do you stand to lose if you accept the science of evolution theory?

 

[The_Barbarian]

You are so very much in error. Evolution science is about as close as science comes to “settled science”. It’s in dispute as much as the theory of gravity.

Actually, it’s less controversial than gravity. We know how both work, but we know why evolution works, while there’s still a lot of controversy about the reason gravity works.

 

[reggieM]

You are so very much in error. Evolution science is about as close as science comes to “settled science”. It’s in dispute as much as the theory of gravity.

I know of no scientists who propose that science gives us a complete explanation of everything in the universe. Lots of very bright people are working on an equation to wrap it all up in a neat theory but it looks like that is a long ways away. String theory might do the job but so far it’s very theoretical and far from finished.

I edited my post after you had already responded.

I meant “science is capable of fully understanding the universe” even if it doesn’t understand it yet. In other words, an understanding of material causes alone is sufficient for understanding the universe.

Do you accept that idea?

Evolution science is about as close as science comes to “settled science”. It’s in dispute as much as the theory of gravity.

There are scientists who strongly disagree with that … as this list shows:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

So there is far more dispute about the theory of evolution than there is about the theory of gravity. At least, I haven’t found a list of scientists who dissent against the law of gravity.

 

[Namesake]

Actually, it’s less controversial than gravity. We know how both work, but we know why evolution works, while there’s still a lot of controversy about the reason gravity works.

I think that is probably true. Cosmology, theoretical physics, and astrophysics are still trying to find a unifying equation and it doesn’t look like that will happens anytime soon. Darwin developed what amounts to a unifying theory of biological science that while not perfect, remains not only sound but provides so much heuristic value.

 

[Namesake]

I edited my post after you had already responded.

I meant “science is capable of fully understanding the universe” even if it doesn’t understand it yet. In other words, an understanding of material causes alone is sufficient for understanding the universe.

Do you accept that idea?

No I do not accept that idea. From quantum mechanics we understand that prediction of a precise explanation of the universe (at least in quantum terms) is impossible. That almost certainly translates into more macro concepts of the nature of the universe and maybe even into biological concepts.

There are scientists who strongly disagree with that … as this list shows:

I really don’t know any scientists who believe that we can know everything.

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

So there is far more dispute about the theory of evolution than there is about the theory of gravity. At least, I haven’t found a list of scientists who dissent against the law of gravity.

It isn’t about dissent about gravity. It’s about how gravity works in quantum physics and how that translates into how gravity works in the cosmos. Gravity itself is well accepted. But in the space-time concept it is a very big question. String theory is probably the best bet for explaining this but it involves 11 dimensions. The math isn’t all that well developed so far.

Remember that Einstein was only working with four dimensions and when he started getting beyond that he didn’t have enough math to finish the job.He really didn’t have enough math to work it out in four dimensions. My opinion is that we don’t have enough math even in 2008 to get the job done with 11 dimensions.

 

[reggieM]

What do you stand to lose if you accept the science of evolution theory?

I cannot accept evolutionary just-so stories, conjectures, extreme improbabilities and outright deceptions as if those are “science”.

I am not convinced that evolutionary theory is true. I find many criticisms of evolutionary theory to be compelling and logical and attempts to refute them have not convinced me.

What I lose by accepting evolutionary theory without being convinced of its truth is the ability to maintain any critical faculty at all.

 

[reggieM]

On the contrary, more and more of Darwin’s 18th century notions are being refuted.

Sorry – that’s 19th century notions.