Flaws with Theistic Evolution

[reggieM]

I was a cradle Catholic who no longer believes in the existence of a personal God or in any other form of supernatural agent.

Ok, thank you.

SpiritMeadow passionately insisted to me that nobody in the discussion was an atheist. Perhaps she didn’t know about your views either.

 

[hecd2]

I’ve seen the very same thing on many a Darwinist webboards also. The passionate responses (about biology?) are filled with bitterness towards others and are well-described in the adjectives you use above.

Because scientists are fed up to the back teeth with people whose ignorance of science is profoundly and invincibly deep but who persist in pontificating on scientific matters, and who think that, with ten minutes study, they can spot flaws in the work of professional scientists who dedicate their lives to the study of the subject. I am contemptuous of people like that, and if that comes over, well, tough.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[reggieM]

What on earth has this got to do with the existence of ordinary human souls in ordinary human people?

Ordinary human people were raised from the dead. Jesus raised Lazarus. St. Peter raised people from the dead, as did St. Benedict and many others. When a dead brain comes back to life it cannot be through the power of the dead brain itself.

These examples would be relevant for those who accept the documented evidence of miraculous occurences – beginning with the resurrection of Christ. That’s clear evidence that there is more to the human person than the brain itself – there are powers beyond the brain.

But obviously, for a person like yourself dismisses all evidence of the miraculous as either fraudulent or illusory or at best a manifestation of the natural powers of the brain – then those examples will not mean anything.

 

[hecd2]

I fully agree. It might have been nice at some point in a prior “debate” that I had with Barbarian, if you had corrected him on his belief that science cannot give any evidence to support the belief in the existence of God. Actually, SpiritMeadow agreed with that notion, as did Tim.

But it’s clearly false. Of course science can contribute evidence to one’s theological conclusions – whether towards a belief in God or an atheist belief. It took me about a dozen posts to try to communicate that to Barbarian, before I finally gave up.

Well Reggie, I don’t follow every post of every debate.

Just to be clear - my opinion is that you can use all your knowledge and experience to reason to a world view, whether that is theistic or atheistic, and that includes your knowledge of the natural world (and it seems that the majority of those who know most about the the natural world, scientists, reach the atheistic conclusion.)

That does not mean that science per se can take any formal theological position - it can’t: good science can be done by those of any or no religious belief, any or no political belief, any or no artistic disposition, any race, colour or creed.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

But obviously, for a person like yourself dismisses all evidence of the miraculous as either fraudulent or illusory or at best a manifestation of the natural powers of the brain – then those examples will not mean anything.

Correct - but I don’t dismiss evidence. I dismiss the claims of miracles because the evidence is lacking.

Alec

 

[hecd2]

Ok, thank you.

SpiritMeadow passionately insisted to me that nobody in the discussion was an atheist. Perhaps she didn’t know about your views either.

Probably not.

Alec

 

[The_Barbarian]

I’m curious…I have seen this phenominon on many and many a Darwinist website, and here it is again, in shining example…pray tell, does being “scientifically minded” cause one to become arrogant, snotty, denigrating, contemptuous, belligerant, and smugly self-righteous, or is that only for more “evolved” individuals of the human race?

It’s not limited to creationists/IDers, but it’s more common among them. One is always astonished at the arrogance of people who know practically nothing about evolutionary theory, expounding on what they are sure it is, and on how scientists have it wrong. And (of course) they become furious when people explain what it’s really about.

Instead of providing evidence for their point of view, they often become bitter and verbally agressive. Regrettably, it sometimes shows up among others as well. It’s self-defeating. Getting angry and abusive is just evidence that one has no argument.

 

[reggieM]

Because scientists are fed up to the back teeth with people whose ignorance of science is profoundly and invincibly deep

Well, I wouldn’t think some of those people are *that *fed up.

I think it’s quite nice that you spend so much time on this Catholic website, for example. Quite honestly, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, especially since you fall pretty obviously into the standard characteristics of the angry atheist – and thus do little to advance your cause – but it’s good to see that you have an interest here in a Catholic environment.

I think even the most ardent Catholic Darwinists here will not trade their faith for the lastest fads in scientific guesswork.

At least, that’s what I was told emphatically when I warned about the dangers of atheism in Darwinist belief.

Not only do I find Darwinism to be very unattractive as a theory, but I find the conclusions to be ludicrous and absurd. The fact that these conclusions are defended with an ardor that surpasses what we find even in some Islamic groups tells me a lot about what people are actually seeking in this scientific view.

But again, I can understand how many people arrive at an atheistic conclusion. I feel that Darwinism is an essential element in that worldview. It supports it and provides a culture that fosters it.

But I think atheism usually requires something more than just Darwinian theory to be embraced as it is.

That is something I’d like to learn more about, honestly.

 

[reggieM]

Alec,

In discussing this topic with you, the biggest obstacle I’d face is with your atheistic position. To me, that’s a much bigger issue than the scientific details.

 

[hecd2]

But I think atheism usually requires something more than just Darwinian theory to be embraced as it is.

That is something I’d like to learn more about, honestly.

You’d be better advised to invest time in learning just a little science before you publicly state again that neo-Darwinism is a ludicrous and absurd theory to describe our observations of nature or some other similar vacuous nonsense.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[reggieM]

I dismiss the claims of miracles because the evidence is lacking.

Personally, I find an abundance of evidence. From the tilma of Guadalupe, to St. Bernadette in Lourdes, to St. Padre Pio’s stigmata (as well as others like him) … there are a lot. There are some good books that detail many of the miracles of Catholic saints – some quite recent with documentation.

At the very least, I would see that as “evidence” of some kind. Claims are made and I would think some explanation would need to follow (they’re deluded, lying, etc).

The Miracle Detective is a recent book by an author who was agnostic at the start but became a believer in miracles after pursuing the stories.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Not only do I find Darwinism to be very unattractive as a theory, but I find the conclusions to be ludicrous and absurd.

I’m thinking that you’ve asserted quite a few things about Darwinian theory that aren’t Darwinian at all. Just for the record, can you sum up what Darwin’s theory actually says? Hint: Five basic principles. If you want, you could also tell us what was added to the theory in the Modern Synthesis, and subsequent modifications.

But start with Darwin’s basic points. Tell us what you think they are.

The fact that these conclusions are defended with an ardor that surpasses what we find even in some Islamic groups tells me a lot about what people are actually seeking in this scientific view.

ID and Islam are non-Christian religious ideas. Obviously, they have a great deal of ardor for the cause, but they differ in the way they try to carry out their programs.

But again, I can understand how many people arrive at an atheistic conclusion. I feel that Darwinism is an essential element in that worldview. It supports it and provides a culture that fosters it.

You think that the Pope is promoting a culture that fosters atheism? If Darwinism is an essential element in atheism, how is it that there were atheists before Darwin? And how is it, that most atheists were creationists before they became atheists?

Wouldn’t promoting creationism (which is the doctine of fundamentalist Protestantism) and ID (which is the official doctrine of the Unification Church) be incongruous with Catholic Christianity?

 

[reggieM]

You’d be better advised to invest time in learning just a little science before you publicly state again that neo-Darwinism is a ludicrous and absurd theory to describe our observations of nature or some other similar vacuous nonsense.

I’ve invested quite a lot of time on these evolutionary threads here at CA recently, and what I found convinced me that Darwinism is even more indefensable than I thought.

The floor is all yours. You can explain anything you want.

Normally the way this is done from the Darwinists here is to attack ID.

I’ve seen enough contradictions and deliberate ambiguity in these conversations to have it very clear in my own mind. Aside from a lot of bluster and hostility, there’s very little of substance.

Examples abound …

I point out that Darwinists have tested to replicate evolutionary processes and have failed to demonstrate them.

You attack this by claiming that evolutionists don’t experiment to replicate evolutionary processes. You use a cryptic reply – offering nothing more in explanation. Waiting for a “gotcha” moment.

I then say, ok, there is no experimentation.

You then attack this by saying it’s “illogical”. Again, cryptic, no explanation about what you mean or what your problem is.

Barbarian comes along and says, yes – there is some testing to replicate evolutionary processes and not all are successful.

This is like a madhouse. Absurd is too nice of a word for it.

If you have something to say – then say it.

Instead, you say “you’re an idiot, learn something”.

I note the Catholic-Darwinists here who never challenged you once on your atheistic conclusions. Instead, they attacked me for defending ID. They sucked down scientific positivism without a thought – selling out the God they claim that they love and believe in.

That is not something to laugh at, but to be very sad about, as I see it.

 

[hecd2]

Alec,

In discussing this topic with you, the biggest obstacle I’d face is with your atheistic position. To me, that’s a much bigger issue than the scientific details.

Fair enough. You, like ricmat, can call foul, claim that I am rude, atheistic or uncivilised and decline to discuss things further.That doesn’t change the fact that I see movements like ID for what they are. It doesn’t change the fact that I am utterly fed up with scientific ignoramuses pronouncing on scientific matters without understanding the most elementary things about what they are discussing. You can choose to debate things with me or you can ignore me - it really doesn’t matter to me one way or the other.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[reggieM]

It took me about a dozen posts to try to communicate that to Barbarian, before I finally gave up.

I hope Barbarian will read Alec’s posts on the topic in question.

 

[hecd2]

Personally, I find an abundance of evidence. From the tilma of Guadalupe, to St. Bernadette in Lourdes, to St. Padre Pio’s stigmata (as well as others like him) … there are a lot. There are some good books that detail many of the miracles of Catholic saints – some quite recent with documentation.

At the very least, I would see that as “evidence” of some kind. Claims are made and I would think some explanation would need to follow (they’re deluded, lying, etc).

The Miracle Detective is a recent book by an author who was agnostic at the start but became a believer in miracles after pursuing the stories.

Get me a peer reviewed paper that documents the miraculous regeneration of an amputated human limb and I’ll waver. Otherwise, it’s a mixture of natural explanations, honest delusion, and fraud.

But what has this got to do with evolution, or even with whether human attributes have natural or supernatural causes?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

Miracles are concrete evidence that the supernatural can affect our world in ways that are visible to our five senses. It shows that God does affect our reality and our physical bodies. This applies to evolution in that “With God, all things are possible.”

It is unfortunate that you appear to be in the “it can all be explained” camp. The ressurection of Jesus Christ actually happened.

God bless,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

Otherwise, it’s a mixture of natural explanations, honest delusion, and fraud.

What category would you put Padre Pio in, for example?

But what has this got to do with evolution, or even with whether human attributes have natural or supernatural causes?

First of all, it’s evidence that there are supernatural causes in existence. The Gospels are evidence of this. The apostolic church is evidence of this. The reports of miracles are evidence of this. This material can be investigated and evaluated. How has it happened that there are so many instances where these events have been said to occur? Why would so many people be deluded? What is the nature of the fraud and what did it expect to gain for the deceivers? There are a lot of questions like this.

If there are supernatural causes in the universe, then what role do they play in human life? If they do play some role, then this needs to be considered in any scientific explanation of the development of human life.

 

[hecd2]

I’ve invested quite a lot of time on these evolutionary threads here at CA recently, and what I found convinced me that Darwinism is even more indefensable than I thought.

Good for you, but your private opinion, because it is utterly uninformed, is of no consequence. You have to learn the science if you want to discuss evolution intelligently, and you won’t learn it on a discussion forum.

The floor is all yours. You can explain anything you want.

What do you want me to explain - everything that is in the 800 plus pages and the several hundred references in a typical undergraduate textbook on evolutionary biology? You have to do your homework if you want to be taken seriously - it is not my job to teach you.

Normally the way this is done from the Darwinists here is to attack ID.

ID is imminently attackable.If you think there is anything defensible in ID, tell us and I’ll explain why it’s wrong.

Examples abound …

I point out that Darwinists have tested to replicate evolutionary processes and have failed to demonstrate them.

But they haven’t so tested to replicate so they haven’t failed (and talk about the pot calling the kettle black - you have failed to produce a single example of a failed experiment to replicate evolutionary processes).

You attack this by claiming that evolutionists don’t experiment to replicate evolutionary processes.

That’s correct - they don’t.

You use a cryptic reply – offering nothing more in explanation. Waiting for a “gotcha” moment.

I then say, ok, there is no experimentation.

Don’t pretend to be naive you were still attempting to undermine the evidential basis for evolution by cheap rhetoric. But there is experimentation - and I gave you examples of the sort of experimental science that provides overwhelming evidence for the fact of evolution - it’s just not your strawman of replicating evolution - what’s so difficult to understand about that? The problem is that you don’t know enough science to have an intelligent or informed conversation about the subject; you are stuck in grade school argumentation - that’s just a fact, not an insult.

I note the Catholic-Darwinists here who never challenged you once on your atheistic conclusions.

What basis have they got to challenge me on? What basis have you got to challenge me on? You haven’t challenged me on my atheism either. All you have done is to post absurd complaints about science based on a profound lack of scientific knowledge.

Instead, they attacked me for defending ID.

Because they think that ID is what it is, a pathetic political attempt to undermine science on religious grounds.

They sucked down scientific positivism without a thought – selling out the God they claim that they love and believe in.

I’ll leave them to rebuke this ridiculous charge.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

What category would you put Padre Pio in, for example?

Probably natural causes if I’m being kind. Psychogenic haemorrhagic disorder is one possible explanation like Gardner syndrome.

What about this:

Get me a peer reviewed paper that documents the miraculous regeneration of an amputated human limb and I’ll waver.

How has it happened that there are so many instances where these events have been said to occur? Why would so many people be deluded? What is the nature of the fraud and what did it expect to gain for the deceivers? There are a lot of questions like this.

How many people believe in astrology, crystal healing or homeopathy?

If there are supernatural causes in the universe, then what role do they play in human life? If they do play some role, then this needs to be considered in any scientific explanation of the development of human life.

However, you are (a) begging the question and (b) ignoring the fact that supernatural causes can never appear in scientific explanations.

Alec
evolutionpages.com