Flaws with Theistic Evolution

[foolishmortal]

Maybe there were primitive humanoids created by God. Who said they had to develop into someone like Adam? Why couldn’t they coexist? There is no evidence that one became the other. It doesn’t happen.

We still have apes. Why are there no homo erectuses or Australopithicas africansises walking around if apes are still here? Where are more advanced transitional animals or people? How could a lower species adapt better than a higher one?

Why is religious imagery used for evolution? They don’t use mustardish gimmicks to promote the health benefits of ketchup to mustard fans. They don’t make yellow ketchup or red mustard. This evolution bit has no more to do with science than women’s liberation has to do with doing anything for women or the latter would be storming China about aborting or abandoning their girls. This is communism/illuminati (who did exist and may be the U.N., Bildebergers or both in modern times), pure and simple.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I found this article…

firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=71

But I can’t find a church article in which it states that the church supports unguided “random events” sort of evolution. Could you point me in that direction?

its you who keep tagging evolution with “unguided random events” that is simply incorrect, and your attempts to muddy the waters by redefining things to suit your own argument are obvious.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

For Catholics, science is not an absolute standard. It always needs to be compared to divine revelation. And the Vatican Astronomer, what does he do?

Everyone is ignoring the linkage that is always made by the Church. Always. Part science and divine providence. Science books only contain part of the answer.

And everyone is ignoring the miracles that are investigated by the Church. Today.
Ed

We, at least I cannot get what you are still complaining about. Agreed, science is not an absolute standard, of what we don’t know, but I will accept that as true. Yes I agree that the Church has the absolute right and duty to examine science in the light of revelation and to make statements about how the two interact. It has done so, you have acknowledged this. You are correct as well that science books contain only part of the answer. The rest is given by the church as you just acknowledged in the preceding sentence.

We aren’t ignoring miracles Ed. But its not really the subject of this discussion. If you wish to discuss that, you can start a thread on that.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I admit to an intimately linked combination of some sort of evolution and divine providence. I do not believe in the standard textbook version of evolution by itself. That is incomplete and is being used to promote atheism.

Ed

Well just as I thought we were in agreement, you have changed things again. Now 18 times you have made statement 1. “I admit to an intimately linked combination of some sort of evolution and divine providence.” Now I don’t know why you include the “some sort of” as a limitation. Why is that? why can’t it be the kind that is given by science?

What is there about the textbook version that is untrue? What about the science exactly is untrue? We agree it is incomplete. The complement to it is the Church which we agree has explained that the two (evolution and God) are most compatible. So what is it that you find wrong in the science book?

So you think that science hands over its finding to the ATHEISTS and they “use” it to dispell God? And how do we correct this? Who’s responsibility is it to correct this impression? If Buddhists decide that evolution helps to prove reincarnation, who is supposed to correct that false notion? I am continually at a loss why you blame the discipline for how others misuse their work. You would destroy the science to stop this it seems. Most illogical I would argue.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

What foolish assertion? Who is trying to get science to verify God? My point is and always has been, the textbooks are incomplete, but around here, that is not the way they are presented. Evolution is declared a fact. While God is… just sort of tacked on as an afterthought.

Ed you do make that assertion, because you continually claim that evolution as now taught is incomplete. Your way of “completing” it is to superimpose a statement in textbooks apparently that say, essentially “Nothing herein denies the existence of God and that he created the universe.” Evolution is a fact regardless of whether it is God driven or not. You can’t make it not a fact because it won’t address your theological concern. God is not tacked on. You showed us for goodness sake that the Pope stated quite clearly that science has no business in speaking of God, now you criticize the very thing you submitted to us.

The fact is evolution speaks to how life evolved on this planet.
The Vatican agrees in principle with this.
The Vatican says science can speak to scientific things, but has no business speaking of supernatural things.
The Vatican supplies the added important theological information that God was the prime and only perfect creator of all that is seen and unseen, and that evolution is not incompatible with this.
The statement is complete.

For Catholics, God comes first, everything else is seconday. Around here, science is made the most important thing. And I ask again, who is trying to verify God through science? And how many are being led astray by the naturalistic philosophy that flows out of textbook evoltionary teaching?

I have seen no one make science more important. What you have here is a lot of fairly dedicated people who are intent that there is no fuzzy thinking going on. Science is science, theology is theology. Both have their place. The Church knows best how to reconcile them, and has done so.

Several here Ed have argued that God is verifiable through scientific inquiry, one they would argue is ID. Happy to know you realize it is not a scientific inquiry, at least so far.

I’m sure I have no idea how many are being led astray by textbook evolutionary teaching. More to the point, who do you blame and who is supposed to solve it and how? That is what we continually ask of you and which you continuously sidestep and avoid.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Hey Ed, if you got God tacked on as an afterthought…that’s a whole lot better than I’ve seen around here.

Then I would suggest you are not reading well at all. I’ve seen zero atheists on this particular thread, at least not recently. I think you must be confusing this discussion with some other on some other site. It is actually quite rare to find an atheist on this site, and if there are here, they must stay mostly to the non-Catholic boards. They appear to be quite rare here.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Maybe there were primitive humanoids created by God. Who said they had to develop into someone like Adam? Why couldn’t they coexist? There is no evidence that one became the other. It doesn’t happen.

We still have apes. Why are there no homo erectuses or Australopithicas africansises walking around if apes are still here? Where are more advanced transitional animals or people? How could a lower species adapt better than a higher one?

Why is religious imagery used for evolution? They don’t use mustardish gimmicks to promote the health benefits of ketchup to mustard fans. They don’t make yellow ketchup or red mustard. This evolution bit has no more to do with science than women’s liberation has to do with doing anything for women or the latter would be storming China about aborting or abandoning their girls. This is communism/illuminati (who did exist and may be the U.N., Bildebergers or both in modern times), pure and simple.

What denomination of Protestantism do you profess BTW?

 

[ricmat]

its you who keep tagging evolution with “unguided random events” that is simply incorrect, and your attempts to muddy the waters by redefining things to suit your own argument are obvious.

Just as someone suggested that we should define what we mean by ID, I guess we should define what we mean by evolution.

When I say “evolution”, unless otherwise specified I mean Darwinian evolution.

When I say Darwinian Evolution, I mean that random mutations are caused by some external event (cosmic ray, etc.). Most mutations are bad for the species, but some are beneficial. Natural selection favors the beneficial ones, which are then passed along to successive generations. And when you have enough random mutations, you have a new species. The basis of life, and advanced life is random mutations. Not designed or planned (as for example selective breeding of dogs by humans), or the creation of chimeras and other beings through purposeful manipulation by intelligent humans.

Note that I didn’t mention God. Darwinian evolution (in which no intelligent guidance plays a role) is what is taught in science classes as fact all over the world (or at least in the US).

Now, if your definition of “evolution” includes some sorts of guided or non-random mutations followed possibly by some non-random natural selection, then that’s OK with me. I believe in that kind of evolution as well. It’s called ID.

And just so we’re clear about definitions, when I say “creationism” I’m referring to those who believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago, in 6 days. I do NOT believe in this.

Perhaps this clarifies things somewhat.

 

[ricmat]

Then I would suggest you are not reading well at all. I’ve seen zero atheists on this particular thread, at least not recently. I think you must be confusing this discussion with some other on some other site. It is actually quite rare to find an atheist on this site, and if there are here, they must stay mostly to the non-Catholic boards. They appear to be quite rare here.

“Around here…” – I was referring to textbooks and public education in Southern California (and the US in general). Not the forums.

Sheesh…

 

[reggieM]

Darwinian evolution (in which no intelligent guidance plays a role) is what is taught in science classes as fact all over the world (or at least in the US).

Agreed. That is the theory and problem at issue here.

The assertion that evolution was “guided” somehow, by intelligence, purpose, God or other cause is basically a refutation of Darwin’s theory.

 

[reggieM]

I’m sorry, but I didn’t see any claims by Dr. Vogler that any beetle species was that old.
It wouldn’t be impossible, but so improbable as to be effectively so. I can’t think of an animal like that.

I’ll just offer a brief thought on your response to this article.

You read the quote, saw my comment and you have objected that what I said and what I see the article as saying simply is not true.

You have correctly (in my opinion) stated that it is “so improbable” that it’s effectively impossible.

Again, as I see it – that’s the correct reaction.

I conclude that you are seeing things in an objective manner. You are thinking like a reasonable human being. In other words, if the story is true and beetles have not evolved at all for the last 350 million years …

Well, I won’t draw your conclusion that I see here. For me, it’s so incredible that evolution is simply disproven on this one story alone. It’s impossible to consider that evolution just “stopped” amid these species of creatures – that is, stopped 70 million years before the dinosaurs existed.

So for me, this is a strong story – basically refuting Darwin’s notion.

But I shouldn’t make too much of your reaction. I’m just saying that your immediate and persistent denial of the truth of the story (or the way I’ve understood it) is a strong indication of how powerful this is.

I can’t see how it would be possible to accept Darwinian evolution if the story is true.

So the final point is to figure out if what I read was correct. I could very well be wrong about it. But I’ll just take a look again to see what it says and see if it can be verified.

 

[steveandersen]

Just as someone suggested that we should define what we mean by ID, I guess we should define what we mean by evolution.

When I say “evolution”, unless otherwise specified I mean Darwinian evolution.

While Darwin did have incredible insights, he is not the be all and end all of evolution.
A lot of stuff has happened in the past century and a half so “Darwinian Evolution” is a misnomer.

When I say Darwinian Evolution, I mean that random mutations are caused by some external event (cosmic ray, etc.).

Evolution is not a truly random process
Genetic variance occurs for many reasons
Many reasons are inherent in the duplication/reproduction process and are not caused by external events.

Most mutations are bad for the species, but some are beneficial.

Most mutations are neutral
There are deterministic factors that limit the nature and extent of mutations.

Mutations like you are describing arise on the individual level; if they reach the species level they are by definition beneficial since they have been selected for.

Natural selection favors the beneficial ones, which are then passed along to successive generations. And when you have enough random mutations, you have a new species. The basis of life, and advanced life is random mutations.

it is not a truly random process

Not designed or planned (as for example selective breeding of dogs by humans), or the creation of chimeras and other beings through purposeful manipulation by intelligent humans.

Note that I didn’t mention God. Darwinian evolution (in which no intelligent guidance plays a role) is what is taught in science classes as fact all over the world (or at least in the US).

All over the world
The US seems to be the only place that has a problem with it.

Now, if your definition of “evolution” includes some sorts of guided or non-random mutations followed possibly by some non-random natural selection, then that’s OK with me. I believe in that kind of evolution as well. It’s called ID.

I will admit that I’ve not studied ID in detail. At it best it appears as a genuine effort to reconcile faith and reason. At its worst it is creationism with the word “God” carefully removed.

At its heart the flaw I see in ID is the basic assumption that apparent complexity equals actually complexity and that necessitates a designer.

There are many things that appear complex such as the motion of schools of fish or the growth of crystals that are based upon a few very simple rules.

Evolution is one of those things.

Now I choose to believe that there is a designer but the observations don’t require it.

If it did then faith wouldn’t be needed. IMHO We’d be no different than Thomas wanting to see and touch the Wounds.

And just so we’re clear about definitions, when I say “creationism” I’m referring to those who believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago, in 6 days. I do NOT believe in this.

Perhaps this clarifies things somewhat.

It does.
I hope that the knowledge that evolution is not (as you appear to think) truly random and completely dependent upon outside events helps.

 

[reggieM]

We’d be no different than Thomas wanting to see and touch the Wounds.

St. Thomas used a scientific method of observation and testing to prove the supernatural.

We use scientific methods to recognize the truth of St. Thomas’ scientific findings as well.

Faith is based on the evidence.

As the Church has taught infallibly, “If anyone shall say that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be certainly known by the natural light of human reason through created things; let him be anathema.” (Vatican Council I, session III).

So, faith is not required to know that God exists. Science shows us this in the observation of “created things”.

 

[reggieM]

it is not a truly random process

I note the use of the word “truly” here. This is to distinguish a “purely” random process vs a process that uses blind, accidental chance – *along with *-- the laws of natural selection, or genetic drift.

Evolution is a random process – certainly, it is not determined or necessary (unless one posits God’s direction of the process).

It is not a “truly random” process because other factors work with accidental mutations.

But one cannot eliminate the random, accidental, blind, purposeless, unguided aspect of evolution without making a radical break with Darwinian theory (which remains the fundamental basis of evolutionary thought today).

 

[steveandersen]

St. Thomas used a scientific method of observation and testing to prove the supernatural.

Thomas used an empirical method, which is not the same as science.
He has also been labeled “Doubting” for his actions

We use scientific methods to recognize the truth of St. Thomas’ scientific findings as well.

Faith is based on the evidence.

then how is it in any way shape of form “faith”?
And what differentiates it from knowledge?

As the Church has taught infallibly, “If anyone shall say that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be certainly known by the natural light of human reason through created things; let him be anathema.” (Vatican Council I, session III).

So, faith is not required to know that God exists. Science shows us this in the observation of “created things”.

So being called on your poor definition of evolution you chose to change the subject?

Observation of created things can indeed lead us to faith. But not all are lead there so saying that faith necessarily follows observation is not right. (the Vatican quote doesn’t mention observation)

 

[steveandersen]

I note the use of the word “truly” here. This is to distinguish a “purely” random process vs a process that uses blind, accidental chance – *along with *-- the laws of natural selection, or genetic drift.

Evolution is a random process – certainly, it is not determined or necessary (unless one posits God’s direction of the process).

It is not a “truly random” process because other factors work with accidental mutations.

Yes and no
There are deterministic factors involved

But one cannot eliminate the random, accidental, blind, purposeless, unguided aspect of evolution without making a radical break with Darwinian theory (which remains the fundamental basis of evolutionary thought today).

Well of course you can’t eliminate chance elements

but there is much more randomness and blind unguided chance in conception than in evolution

 

[ricmat]

While Darwin did have incredible insights, he is not the be all and end all of evolution.
A lot of stuff has happened in the past century and a half so “Darwinian Evolution” is a misnomer.

I believe I said the same thing in a different post.

Evolution is not a truly random process
Genetic variance occurs for many reasons
Many reasons are inherent in the duplication/reproduction process and are not caused by external events.

I used cosmic rays as an example. Yes, I understand that the replication process does not always make exact copies. But if the process itself leads to “good” mutations, all I can say is…that’s a great design

Most mutations are neutral
There are deterministic factors that limit the nature and extent of mutations.

Mutations like you are describing arise on the individual level; if they reach the species level they are by definition beneficial since they have been selected for.

it is not a truly random process

I absolutely agree. It is not truly a random process. And if it is not random, then it must be guided, or somehow designed for a “bias” in a particular direction. IMHO.

All over the world
The US seems to be the only place that has a problem with it.

The history of the world (and the history of salvation, and the history of science) is replete with examples of the “remnant” who were faithful, or the individual who was right against all odds.

Just because 5000 years ago 100% of the people in the world thought that the earth was flat didn’t actually make it so.

I will admit that I’ve not studied ID in detail. At it best it appears as a genuine effort to reconcile faith and reason. At its worst it is creationism with the word “God” carefully removed.

You are more generous (and objective) in your assessment of ID than many posters on this board. Thank you for having an open mind.

At its heart the flaw I see in ID is the basic assumption that apparent complexity equals actually complexity and that necessitates a designer.

There are many things that appear complex such as the motion of schools of fish or the growth of crystals that are based upon a few very simple rules.

I’m not sure your first statement is correct…
I’d say that ID says that complexity can be analyzed to determine whether or not it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that a designer was involved.

In my mind, ID goes further back than just biology (and evolution). It includes the fine tuning of the laws and constants of the universe. So eventually, you need a designer (again, IMO).

I hope that the knowledge that evolution is not (as you appear to think) truly random and completely dependent upon outside events helps.

You correctly point out that evolution follows the laws of creation. So do those laws of creation allow enough time for evolution to create life, or intelligent life? This, I believe, is the flaw with evolution as it is currently taught. 13-20 billion years is a long way short of enough time…without some built in bias, or “hand of God” type events.

Those laws of creation, what a design!!

 

[reggieM]

then how is it in any way shape of form “faith”?

I proposed that faith is based on evidence. Science provides evidence for the existence of God and of God’s work in nature.

But it still requires faith.

It’s the concept of “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

That’s how we can use apologetics with the Catholic faith. We give the reasons and evidence. We say that Jesus existed and taught and rose from the dead.

This is evidence, we believe it is “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

But people look at the evidence and they don’t believe. They don’t think the evidence is strong enough.

So Christ taught us that we have to have faith. Waiting for absolute proof is not the right way. He gives us evidence, sufficient to know that we’re not just believing in a fairy tale. But faith is required still.

St. Paul said that nature (“the things that are made”) gave such obvious proof of the existence of God that it would be “inexcusable” for the pagans to disbelieve.

 

[The_Barbarian]

What foolish assertion? Who is trying to get science to verify God?

Those who say science verifies God.

My point is and always has been, the textbooks are incomplete, but around here, that is not the way they are presented.

Hmm… must have missed that. Can you direct me to the post that says textbooks are “complete?”

Evolution is declared a fact.

Directly observed. Nothing is better documented in science.

While God is… just sort of tacked on as an afterthought.

For those who think science can show you God. Not for Christians generally.

For Catholics, God comes first, everything else is seconday. Around here, science is made the most important thing.

Hmm… missed that one, too. Can you direct me to the post where someone said science was more important than God?

And I ask again, who is trying to verify God through science?

All those who claim that there is scientific evidence for God.

And how many are being led astray by the naturalistic philosophy that flows out of textbook evoltionary teaching?

I review science textbooks, and never have seen "naturalistic philosophy " in any of them or in any public school curriculum. Who is led astray? Those who think science can verify or deny God.

 

[The_Barbarian]

“St. Thomas used a scientific method of observation and testing to prove the supernatural.”

Let’s see what God has to say…

John 20:29 Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.

Jesus did a personal favor for John, His friend. But He also told John that the blessed believe without seeing.