Flaws with Theistic Evolution

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

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

And what differentiates it from knowledge?

Because faith is not trusting that which you do not know. Faith is trusting what you do know and acting upon that knowledge. Even the adversary knew that God existed-- but the adversary did not trust God and neither did he put any faith in God into action.

Have you ever heard about the guy who walked a tight rope across Niagra Falls?

Many people watched him do it. To them he asked, “Do you believe I can walk a tight rope across the Falls?”

They all replied, “Yes.” They had already seen him do it.

Then he pushed a wheel barrow on a tight rope across Niagra Falls. When he completed the feat, he asked the onlookers, “Do you believe I can walk a tight rope across the Falls pushing a wheel barrow?”

To that they replied unanimously, “Yes.” Because they saw him do that too.

Finally, a buddy of the tight rope walker climbs into the wheel barrow and the tight rope walker pushes him across the Falls. Wow, what a daring feat! When they finished, the tight rope walker asked the crowd, “Do you believe I can walk a tight rope across the Falls pushing a wheel barrow with a person in it?”

To that they exclaimed, “Yes!” For they were now believers in this guy’s awesome abilities.

Then he looked at the crowd and asked, "Who’s next?"

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)

Yes it does.

The Vatican is quoting and expounding on Romans 1:20…
Romans 1:20:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

God’s **eternal power **and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

God does not hide himself in order to generate faith.

God reveals himself in order to generate faith.

Find the chair closest to you. Look at it closely. Examine its design.

Is it structurally sound?

Is it sufficiently engineered?

Will the materials chosen by the manufacturer support your weight?

Most likely, you picked a chair that you believe will support you. That’s belief. You applied logic, knowledge and experience to make an informed intellectual decision.

Now sit in the chair… That’s faith!

At one point, intellectual assent only goes so far. True living faith requires that we put our beliefs into action. Intellectual belief without actionable faith is hollow and meaningless…

 

[mich2]

I’m saying that we should not try to get science to verify God, because such efforts always fail, and those who try, end up looking like fools, and thereby damage our chances of reaching many who might otherwise accept Him.

A long time ago, St. Augustine cautioned his fellow Christians to aviod such foolish assertion, for that very reason.

In my opinion, many scientific theories involve metaphysical implications.The point of Singularity, which hypothetically existed before the birth of the universe is a metaphysical entity. The steady state theory of the universe, which implies an eternal universe, is also metaphysical in essence.If the point of singularity can be offered as a scientific theoretical hypothesis in a science class, then, any gaps found within scientific theories, such as the ones found in the process needed for macroevolution to occur, ought to be able to be filled with some possible hypothetical processes, even if it implies a metaphysical one. The idea that evolution occured in the same way an embryo develops into a human person ought not to be discouraged, in my opinion. It’s actually the same form of observation which Darwin used to introduce his theory; it’s also the simplest of solutions; and some observations, explained through Quantum Mechanics, exists to support such a process. If this would be the case, then, the process of evolution had to be intellegently designed.

pnews.org/ArT/TrU/QuantumEvolution.shtml

**Quote:Quantum mechanics tells us that the protons in DNA that form the basis of DNA coding are not specifically localised to certain positions but must be smeared out along the double helix. But these different positions for the coding protons correspond to different DNA codes. At the quantum mechanical level, DNA must exist in a superposition of mutational states.

If these particles can enter quantum states then DNA may be able to slip into the quantum multiverse and sample multiple mutations simultaneously. But what makes it drop out of the quantum world? Most physicists agree that systems enter quantum states when they become isolated from their environment and pop out of the multiverse when they exchange significant amounts of energy with their environment, an interaction that is termed quantum measurement. Cells may enter quantum states when they are unable to divide and replicate perhaps they cant utilise a particular substrate in their environment. They may collapse out of those quantum states when their DNA superposition includes a mutation that allows them to grow and replicate once more. In this way the environment interacts with, and performs a quantum measurement on the cell, to precipitate advantageous mutations. From our viewpoint, inhabiting only one universe, the cell appears to choose certain mutations. **

The observation below would support such an hypothesis

**Quote:But is there any evidence for this? When John Cairns of the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston set out to test the dogma that mutations occur at the same rate whether or not they provided an advantage, he found that things were not so simple. Cairns examined bacteria that were deficient in their ability to utilise the milk sugar lactose. When he exposed these bacteria to conditions in which lactose was the only food source, they starved. The cells did not die but instead went into a kind of suspended animation state, called dormancy. Dormancy was a well-known phenomenon so Cairns was not surprised to find that his bacteria managed to survive in this state for many weeks. What did come as a surprise was the discovery that, after a lag period of a day or two, several of his bacterial cells managed to grow and replicate. These replicating cells had acquired a mutation that allowed them to feed on the lactose. What was even more surprising was his observation that the cells only acquired these lactose-eating mutations when lactose was available. **

This would suggest the eye to have evolved because light first had to exist. Whatever hypothesis could support this
ought to be introduced within science classes, in my opinion. The theory of Theistic Evolution would hold, in my opinion, such a view.

Andre

 

[foolishmortal]

How God created the world cannot be different than how the world was created. Einstein was not for the separation of science and religion and was correct. Religion (esp. Christianity–I mean, who has had visits from Buddha) should not give it up to science and vice versa. Of course, it has to be science and not scientific sounding conclusions that are inseparable from religion. We cannot have a dictatorship of science in cosmology because fallen nature takes advantage of that as well as a dictatorship over science by religion. Science and atheists have witnessed things like Fatima, but where are the transitional events between on species and another.

It’s likely that there were both kinds living at the same time, but one died out and the other didn’t, because it adjusted better. How could homo erectus and other supposed transitional versions of bodies more like man’s did not outlived less advanced apes? Man has been around for thousands of years. Why haven’t we evolved since? Maybe we don’t use an appendix, but that’s microevolution and there’s no complaints about that.

 

[The_Barbarian]

In my opinion, many scientific theories involve metaphysical implications.

Nature itself has metaphysical implications. The point is that science, being limited by its methodology to the physical world, can’t address those things.

If the point of singularity can be offered as a scientific theoretical hypothesis in a science class, then, any gaps found within scientific theories, such as the ones found in the process needed for macroevolution to occur, ought to be able to be filled with some possible hypothetical processes, even if it implies a metaphysical one.

Not in science, it can’t. Science can only work with evidence obtained by observations of the physical universe. No magic. No supernatural. Of course, if you want to fill in the gaps with magic or religion, you can. But the God of the Gaps philosophy has a dangerous edge; science has a way of filling in the gaps, and if you base your faith in God on what science has not yet discovered, you are on shaky ground indeed.

BTW, since we have directly observed macroevolution, and know exactly what causes it, I’m puzzled that you think there are “gaps.” Evolutionary theory (like all sciences) has questions yet to solve, but that’s not one of them.

The idea that evolution occured in the same way an embryo develops into a human person ought not to be discouraged, in my opinion.

Well, that’s demonstrably wrong. We show, in utero, some features of our distant ancestors, but this does not mean recapitulation is true. It merely means that our development is constrained by things that went on before.

It’s actually the same form of observation which Darwin used to introduce his theory; it’s also the simplest of solutions; and some observations, explained through Quantum Mechanics, exists to support such a process.

Well, show us the equations of quantum mechanics that supports recapitulation. That would be a surprise.

If this would be the case, then, the process of evolution had to be intellegently designed.

Pretty big “if”. BTW, your blogger confused protons and electrons, so my confidence in his knowledge of quantum mechanics has been damaged significantly. And I’m very puzzled as to why he thinks it’s impossible that the ability to vary mutation rates at specific loci could evolve. He offers no explanation, just assumes so.

**Quantum mechanics tells us that the protons in DNA that form the basis of DNA coding are not specifically localised to certain positions but must be smeared out along the double helix. **

Electrons are. Protons are tightly bound in nucleii by the strong force. If not, and they move about, the elements would change from one sort to another. It takes a huge amount of energy to knock them loose (an atomic bomb is based on that energy). Your guy has confused electrons and protons.

But these different positions for the coding protons correspond to different DNA codes. At the quantum mechanical level, DNA must exist in a superposition of mutational states.

Or, just possibly, there was a selective advantage in being able to change mutation rates under certain environmental conditions. The difference between speculating about “quantum worlds” and natural selection is that there is evidence for the latter.

This would suggest the eye to have evolved because light first had to exist.

It would be a little hard to imagine an eye forming, if there was no selective advantage for it, yes.

Whatever hypothesis could support this
ought to be introduced within science classes, in my opinion. The theory of Theistic Evolution would hold, in my opinion, such a view.

Make it testable. And then, test it. If it has evidence to support it, write a paper, and you’ll be showered with honors, maybe a Nobel.

Until then… well, you know.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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

Sheesh…

There is nothing sheesh about it. Glad you cleared it up. There are some here who persist in calling their opponents atheists for no reason than that they are unable to argue their position as successful, so it all gets thrown up as the 'atheists" are out to destroy the Church. There are none in this discussion so far as i can tell.

 

[freesoulhope]

And that’s really strange also - to think of Adam looking at his body and realizing it once belonged to an animal.

I really don’t understand the objection here. If God gives you something, like a living breathing body, why would anybody think it to be a strange thing? As if to say we deserve better! Human beings usually accept the reality into which they are born; its unlikley that Adam would have been bothered much by such a thing—he would be happy to exist.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

I’m not the expert here by a long shot. It seems right, but as I said, the scientists on this thread would know better than I. I agree that I believe Barbarian pointed out that Darwin actually did reference God in “Origin of Species” but generally, i agree that darwinism (why not evolution btw) does not in general speak to faith at all. It’s straight science.

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).

I agree, and I would argue properly so. I’m sure its what is also taught most everywhere else. This discussion is not held most anywhere else because nobody else but Americans it seems are confused about evolution and God.

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

No my definition surely doesn’t. I don’t even know what "some sort of guided or non-random mutations followed possible by some …means anyway…If you call this ID, then I don’t believe in that either. ID would in a perfect world define my beliefs, but its now associated with creationism and the term is worthless. I believe God created the laws by which the universe operates and spoke it into existence, of Himself in no way diminishing Himself.

Thanks for making things a bit clearer.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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

That seems an incredible stretch. So when I put my hand over a burner to see if its on, I’m conducting a scientific experiment? Perhaps technically, but this is really taking it to the simplistic.

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”.

You are making a huge mistake here. Reason only works when you start from a basis of faith. There is NO independent proof of God. If there were, there would be no nonbelievers. As believers we of course see God’s hand in everyday things. But that does not dispute the fact that there are natural explanations for them and we know this as well.

What you fail to see I think is that trying to torture some “proof of God” from nature doesn’t enhance your argument among unbelievers, it makes your belief all the more irrational. You make perfect sense to the believer. If you want to convince the unbeliever you must produce real evidence of a nature all commonly agree is subject to testing and prediction. When somebody does that, it will make headline news worldwide.

 

[ricmat]

There is nothing sheesh about it. Glad you cleared it up. There are some here who persist in calling their opponents atheists for no reason than that they are unable to argue their position as successful, so it all gets thrown up as the 'atheists" are out to destroy the Church. There are none in this discussion so far as i can tell.

There are some here who are incredibly rude, arrogant, condescending, and quite inventive in their reasons why people respond negatively to them.

I don’t think that either you or Barbarian are atheists. I do believe that darwinian evolution as taught in our schools is actually used to promote atheism. You are free to disagree. I’m not obligated to respond to every demand you make for “proof” (especially when it is said that “science can’t prove anything.”)

Also, I never said that Darwin was an atheist. I said that what is commonly referred to today as evolution is called (for better or worse) Darwinian evolution, and is used as a wedge for atheism.

 

[ricmat]

I agree, and I would argue properly so. I’m sure its what is also taught most everywhere else. This discussion is not held most anywhere else because nobody else but Americans it seems are confused about evolution and God.

Yes, we Americans are “confused.”

More condescension.

ID would in a perfect world define my beliefs, but its now associated with creationism and the term is worthless. I believe God created the laws by which the universe operates and spoke it into existence, of Himself in no way diminishing Himself.

OK - so the label ID is bad. Let’s call it something else so that you can get over the emotion of the creationist label.

 

[edwest2]

The Bible tells us that Creation itself reveals the hand of the Creator so that we are without excuse.

Science books do not reveal this. Without the Word of God, the average person is given only part of the answer.

The Bible tells us that even if a person returned from the dead, people would still not believe. Look how unbelievers consider Jesus - never existed, wasn’t God, rose from the dead? Yeah, right.

I am not saying science books or “science” should or even could prove the existence of God, what I am saying is that it is the spiritual inclination of everyone to sin. And to think as the world does, which is usually not about God.

Now, the evolution textbooks will leave you with two choices after you are done reading them. God was involved or God had no hand in it. What the Catholic Church is telling you is that divine providence guided the process - and that neo-Darwinism which explicitly denies to God any truly causal role, is insufficient by itself. The Church is not telling scientists to write that in their scientific articles or journals, but it is telling believers that.

So, to believe only what science tells you shows you a process that occurred entirely on its own, with no divine intervention whatsoever. This is a great encouragement to the atheist who can, and is, saying to the world, “See. It all happened by itself - No God Required.” This is the wrong message to send, but it is being sent and some believe it.

To strictly accept, as a believer, only the science while excluding divine revelation, is an error. The Church doesn’t sorta kinda believe, it has been informed by divine revelation that a real, physical God exists at this moment. To insist on looking at the science only narrows our view of our origin and discards the deposit of faith which is truth. The Church does not sorta kinda believe “Body of Christ” when the Communion wafer is given to someone.

The world has science, but each person also has a spiritual component, a soul, which many are trying to ignore and/or a faith that lasts for one hour a week and who aren’t sure what they believe or who do not practice the tenets of their faith.

I don’t have a problem with science, only with those who have replaced God with it.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

The Bible tells us that Creation itself reveals the hand of the Creator so that we are without excuse.

Science books do not reveal this.

Can’t. Science is too weak a method to deal with the supernatural.

Without the Word of God, the average person is given only part of the answer.

Right. Science can never replace faith and revelation.

I am not saying science books or “science” should or even could prove the existence of God, what I am saying is that it is the spiritual inclination of everyone to sin. And to think as the world does, which is usually not about God.

I’m wondering why you think science made that happen. It was going on long before science.

Now, the evolution textbooks will leave you with two choices after you are done reading them. God was involved or God had no hand in it.

No. They can’t pose that choice. But you can.

What the Catholic Church is telling you is that divine providence guided the process - and that neo-Darwinism which explicitly denies to God any truly causal role,

Um, no. It can’t. It has no way of saying what causes nature to be as it is, nor can it deny or confirm that God remains completely in control of nature. Even atheistic scientists won’t tell you that God or creation is refuted by science. At least I haven’t any evidence for that. Not even from zealots like Dawkins.

So, to believe only what science tells you shows you a process that occurred entirely on its own, with no divine intervention whatsoever.

No. Science can’t deny or confirm that. It would be like saying a plumber couldn’t fix a leak without acknowledging divine providence.

This is a great encouragement to the atheist who can, and is, saying to the world, “See. It all happened by itself - No God Required.” This is the wrong message to send, but it is being sent and some believe it.

Notice that it is the ignorant who make this claim. Atheistic scientists are well aware that this is a faulty argument.

You seem to want science to help you in establishing faith. And it can’t. Can’t, anymore than your plumber can help by fixing your pipes.

I don’t have a problem with science, only with those who have replaced God with it.

Well, then we need to educate some people, um? If we were all familiar with science and what it does, the problem wouldn’t exist.

 

[edwest2]

Professor Dawkins has stated, “We no longer believe in the Greek or Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.” You appear to have not read his tirade against God in The God Delusion. Are you aware that he has started a foundation and is offering a book about how to raise children without God?

When asked if God formed man from the dust of the earth and breathed life into his nostrils, his reply was, “No.” He then went on to explain how purely natural processes caused mankind to be.

Go to any atheist forum (Warning: Not for the weak or confused in their faith.) Read their exact words and come back with your assessment of how the science of evolution has impacted them. I suggest you also visit the Rally for Reason web site and look at who their sponsors are.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

At my LCMS school we began a unit on evolution today. The pastor said that you cannot be Christian and believe in theistic evolution, and he gave proof for this which was pretty outstanding. He said that if animals evolved into the bodies of humans over a course of millions of years how could death be allowed in this equation? Death, he said is a direct result of original sin, why was there death if the sin had not occured yet?

**Did Adam and Eve eat only no living dirt? ** What about other animals? Even if the other animals only ate plants, those plants DIED. But, since animals are made with teeth designed to tear apart meat, it is likely they ate other animals – otherwise the design of those teeth make no sense in a prefallen world. Basically, the pastors full arugment is based on assumptions.

If Adam and Eve and other animals ate only plants, then plants died. If there was no decay, ah what happened to ADam and Eve’s waste products, did they simply pick it up and throw it over the fence? If there was no death or decay, then **how did Adam and Eve digest their food? ** by miracle?

Basically, the assumptions that Pastor made are just plain silly when you look at HOW the human body works. Think about it, if a body continued to grow skin and no skin died and flaked off becoming dust, talk about thick skinned.

Your human body has a certin degree of decay, death built in. Otherwise, you would NOT be able to digest food at all.

 

[edwest2]

Jesus Christ ate like all other human beings. It is clear that Adam and Eve would have continued on in perfect union with God if they had not sinned.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Why Can’t God Be An Evolutionist?
outersystem.us/creationism/notatheism.html

 

[reggieM]

OK - so the label ID is bad. Let’s call it something else so that you can get over the emotion of the creationist label.

Very good one.

 

[hecd2]

Professor Dawkins has stated, “We no longer believe in the Greek or Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.” You appear to have not read his tirade against God in The God Delusion. Are you aware that he has started a foundation and is offering a book about how to raise children without God?

Well, why on earth shouldn’t he? He makes no secret of his atheism. Believers have been using the natural theology argument for centuries. Now the majority of those people who professionally study the natural world reject the teleological argument - their worldview has at least as much prima facie validity as Paley’s and his heirs.

When asked if God formed man from the dust of the earth and breathed life into his nostrils, his reply was, “No.” He then went on to explain how purely natural processes caused mankind to be.

So? Dawkins is an atheist - what do you expect him to say? That is the conclusion that the majority of professional biologists have reached. You might not like it, but in hundreds of posts over months you seem incapable of understanding the simple fact that whether evolution is true or not does not depend on its theological or philosophical consequences.

Some scientists think that the biology is compatible with a theistic worldview, more think that it is not, but whether the science is correct or not does not depend on the uninformed opinions of Schoenborn and Ratzinger

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm

 

[reggieM]

So? Dawkins is an atheist - what do you expect him to say?

I wouldn’t expect him to say:

“purely natural processes caused mankind to be”

In order to know that one would need to know all of the processes that caused mankind to be. So, it’s a use of evolutionary science to draw an atheistic conclusion.

Dawkins simply reflects the Darwinist position. To say “purely natural processes caused mankind” is to say that there was no other process involved – not God’s guidance or direct (or indirect) involvement.

This is an exclusion of God. It’s hubris also because it’s a claim to know all of the processes involved in the creation of mankind.

That claim by Dawkins goes unchallenged by Darwinists. In fact, they support what he says.

 

[mich2]

Not in science, it can’t. Science can only work with evidence obtained by observations of the physical universe. No magic. No supernatural. Of course, if you want to fill in the gaps with magic or religion, you can. But the God of the Gaps philosophy has a dangerous edge; science has a way of filling in the gaps, and if you base your faith in God on what science has not yet discovered, you are on shaky ground indeed.

Are you saying the gravitational point of singularity, believed to be the cause of the Big Bang, isn’t a scientific concept, or are you saying that it isn’t a metaphysical concept? If it isn’t a scientific concept, why is it being taught in science classes?

BTW, since we have directly observed macroevolution, and know exactly what causes it, I’m puzzled that you think there are “gaps.” Evolutionary theory (like all sciences) has questions yet to solve, but that’s not one of them.

I meant to say whether those mutations, which allows for survival, exists by accident or whether it is a life process or force which protects the lifeform from being destroyed…a form of dynamic, purposeful process as such.

Well, that’s demonstrably wrong. We show, in utero, some features of our distant ancestors, but this does not mean recapitulation is true. It merely means that our development is constrained by things that went on before.

How does this demonstrate the hypothesis that lifeforms adapt itself to it’s environment through a dynamic, purposeful process of mutation, as being wrong?

Well, show us the equations of quantum mechanics that supports recapitulation. That would be a surprise.

I am not a scientist; however, I have posted the point of view of a molecular geneticist who seem to support a different view of what mutation consists, calling it adaptive mutation, and disagrees to it as being accidental in essence.You may certainly disagree with him, but his view remains valid. This process, correctly understood, seems to point to evolution as being an adaptive process, where life continuously changes in order to, not only better adapt itself to it’s environment, but also to develop into a higher from of life.

Pretty big “if”. BTW, your blogger confused protons and electrons, so my confidence in his knowledge of quantum mechanics has been damaged significantly. And I’m very puzzled as to why he thinks it’s impossible that the ability to vary mutation rates at specific loci could evolve. He offers no explanation, just assumes so.

It seems that in the experiment of bacteria, deficient in their ability to utilise the milk sugar lactose,mutation does not always occur at the same rate.

**Quantum mechanics tells us that the protons in DNA that form the basis of DNA coding are not specifically localised to certain positions but must be smeared out along the double helix. **

Electrons are. Protons are tightly bound in nucleii by the strong force. If not, and they move about, the elements would change from one sort to another. It takes a huge amount of energy to knock them loose (an atomic bomb is based on that energy). Your guy has confused electrons and protons.

Protons can also be viewed as being non-local. The EPR experiment was performed using two protons instead of electrons.

www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/62503008/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Or, just possibly, there was a selective advantage in being able to change mutation rates under certain environmental conditions. The difference between speculating about “quantum worlds” and natural selection is that there is evidence for the latter.

Again, I’m not a scientist, so whatever valid scientific theory you might accept is ok; but this in itself does not negate nor reduces other hypothesis into being inferior.
However, you mentioned the possibility of “selective advantages” which could influence a certain specific mutation to turn up…how does this equate to what you claim is something totally random and accidental in nature?

It would be a little hard to imagine an eye forming, if there was no selective advantage for it, yes.

Which is why I believe the mutations involved in the process of the development of the eye isn’t accidental, but purposeful in essence.

Make it testable. And then, test it. If it has evidence to support it, write a paper, and you’ll be showered with honors, maybe a Nobel.

Until then… well, you know.

Well, again, I am not a scientist. However, my point is simply that other valid scientific theories exist pointing to evolution as a process of mutant development believed to be something other than being a random process as such.

Andre