Flaws with Theistic Evolution

[hecd2]

I wouldn’t expect him to say:

“purely natural processes caused mankind to be”

Why not?

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.

Not so - one doesn’t need to know all processes to reach an atheistic conclusion. If there is no need to call on supernatural processes, why do so? It’s called parsimony. The same argument that you use can be used to argue for the Flying Spaghetti monster, or the Pink Unicorn or the Tooth Fairy.

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.

In just the same way that physicists say that natural processes caused formation of stars, galaxies, clusters and super-clusters. Only natural processes required.

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.

You are committing a logical fallacy as I have already pointed out. It is an exclusion of God on the grounds of maximum likelihood and parsimony if it is a philosophical view. Of course, religious scientists also exclude supernatural explanations when they are doing science - that’s called methodological naturalism and it has ALWAYS been a foundational method of natural science.

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

So what? Why shouldn’t Dawkins use his understanding of the natural world to reach or support his worldview?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

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.

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

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.

Unfortunately you are way out of date. More recent work has shown that, although bacteria under stress do mutate more rapidly (in fact, the ability to do that has itself evolved), they do not mutate preferentially at beneficial sites. See for example
Foster, Adaptive Mutations, Genetics 148, 1453 - 1459, 1998
Taddeo et al, Role of Mutator alleles in Adaptive Evolution, Nature 387, 700 - 702, 1997
Foster, Mechanisms of stationary Phase Mutation, Ann Rev Gen 33, 57 - 88, 1999
plus others I can cite if needed.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[The_Barbarian]

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?

I’m not a physicist, but they tell me there is evidence suggesting it. If so, it’s a scientific concept.

If it isn’t a scientific concept, why is it being taught in science classes?

If it isn’t, it shouldn’t be. But people who study that sort of thing, admit to having evidence for it.

Bararian observes:
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

Various experiments have shown them to arrive randomly.

or whether it is a life process or force which protects the lifeform from being destroyed…a form of dynamic, purposeful process as such.

Haven’t seen any evidence for anything but natural causes. Do you have checkable evidence for any?

Barbarian on recapitulation per Haeckel:
We show, in utero, some features of our distant ancestors, but this does not mean recapitulation is true…

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

You alluded to recapitulation. The evidence that mutations are random is sufficient for the other.

Barbarian suggests:
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

He’s decidedly in the minority on this, among his fellows, and while that doesn’t guarantee he’s wrong, it should give you pause unless you can grasp the argument.

You may certainly disagree with him, but his view remains valid.

No appeal to authority means much in science.

Barbarian observes:
Pretty big “if”. BTW, your blogger confused protons and electrons, … 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.

Which could mean all sorts of things, including a regulator that switches on or off in the presence of a substrate.

From the blog:
**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. **

Barbarian observes:
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.

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

Free protons, yes. Those bound in nucleii stay there, unless the atom changes into that of another element.

Barbarian observes:
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.

The other hypothesis lacks evidence and seems untestable.

how does this equate to what you claim is something totally random and accidental in nature?

I didn’t. “Accidental” is not a scientific concept. And mutation rates at various loci normally have various rates, including rates of back mutation. What is random is precisely when the mutation occurs.

(sensible conclusion that eyes would not evolve in the absence of light)

Barbarian observes:
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.

If so, then a rock rolling down a hill is purposeful. Neither requires any outside intelligence to happen.

Barbarian suggests:
Make it testable. And then, test it. .

Until then… well, you know.

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.

Comes down to evidence. Which is why it doesn’t get much support.

 

[reggieM]

Why shouldn’t Dawkins use his understanding of the natural world to reach or support his worldview?

You’re arguing that science provides evidence to “support his worldview”. Thus, science can provide evidence to support the belief in the existence of God (which should be obvious but which has been denied by the evolutionary supporters here).

You’re arguing that science contributes evidence to theological conclusions. That’s what Dawkins has done – used his scientific findings to conclude that there is no God.

If I’m right about your view, then you’re arguing against all of the people here who claim that science does not give any evidence to support belief in the existence of God.

Dawkins uses his study of nature to arrive at an atheistic conclusion.

Dawkins’ view is a refutation (if he’s correct) of theistic evolution as well. His scientific conclusions are incompatible with the belief that God “guided” or influenced evolutionary processes.

At best, the only option for a believer in God would be the Deist heresy. God would be unnecessary – and thus would not be God (the necessary being).

If the universe came into being through entirely natural processes, as Dawkins believes, then science has proven that there is no need for a God to exist since God would have no role in the process.

So if Dawkins’ science is correct, then theistic evolution is false.

But if God did, indeed, create the world and human life, then Dawkins’ science is false since he claims that human beings came into existence through “purely natural means”.

I assume that you’re an atheist or agnostic of some kind – not a Catholic. Correct?

 

[The_Barbarian]

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.

That’s not the problem. ID was the new name for creationism. And creationism was the new name for “Flood Geology.”

The problems aren’t going to be fixed with a name change. It’s more than a P.R. problem.

 

[reggieM]

“purely natural processes caused mankind to be”

Why not?

Apparently you believe that to be correct. Do you believe that the human soul was created through natural processes alone?

I’d appreciate seeing the scientific proof of that.

 

[foolishmortal]

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.

You talk about how the body works, yet you believe we came from animals. How did bodies work then? Before the fall, man and animals may not have had to eat and thus, not defecate. You only have assumptions based on bones and guesswork. We also have an appendix that might have done something. You have no more scientific evidence for macroevolution than creationists do for a prefallen state of mankind so there’s no point teaching it as undeniable fact.

Scientific conclusions are no set-in-stone conclusions. We see old understandings of science replaced by drastically new ones in our lifetime. It’s special interests, legacies, money, prestige, fear of deprivation of way of life by the scientific pharisees and/or etc. that make real science not progress.

Why is it that Dawkins was made the mild-mannered good guy in “Inherit the Wind” and his opponent, the mean-spirited jerk, when it was the exact opposite? I mean, if evolution is so true, the science should stand on its own.
I think all the evidence calling macroevolution into question is there. Its believers are too arrogant to admit the possibility and so they just poke fun at creationists or call them irrational.

 

[foolishmortal]

If Evolution can be taught as proof to students without being fully understood, why can’t Biblical creation be, if it is not full understood? I don’t think Einstein had consensus in mind when he talked about the relationship between science and religion. Eugenicists, often atheists or agnostics in Darwin’s time, own evolution, plain and simple. Stalin would call everyone else who thought they were doing good for mankind by spreading communism, “useful idiots”. If you become a cripple watch out, you might just be one of those “useless eaters”.

People were craving for this population control stuff in Darwin’s day (Darwin likely influenced by preconceived notions in his analysis). They forgot something, though, before promoting macroevolution, the scientific method. Unfortunately, there is nothing concrete to study to determine that one species can become another. An old Earth is another topic, but it’s just as likely two cousins of hominid primates lived at the same time–the human, always human, survived; the non-human didn’t (probably because God gave humans a soul and it was not important the other went extinct). Apes may have microevolved as far as they could as they are still here. We don’t have proof either way and not enough to teach it as fact.

Who cares though,about the scientific method. Fascism has no need for critics, but see them as a threat and thus, need to be silenced. We cannot get rid of blacks and the the infirm with those darn critics around. Hateful Masonic elites had control of elite society and their descendents have control of the masses. You use the flying spaghetti monster (however that makes fun of creationism–sounding more like evolution) joke on creationists; we use panevolution (alien ancestors), the evolution of real evolutionary thought and the origins of the theory itself. This is the real world…face it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

If Evolution can be taught as proof to students without being fully understood, why can’t Biblical creation be, if it is not full understood?

It can be, and should be. But not in science class. And not in public schools, except in philosophy or comparative religion classes. And keep in mind, there is no conflict between evolution and Biblical creation. How could there be?

I don’t think Einstein had consensus in mind when he talked about the relationship between science and religion.

Actually, he had deism on his mind? You want to teach that?

Eugenicists, often atheists or agnostics in Darwin’s time, own evolution, plain and simple.

I don’t know any eugenicists who even understand evolution, much less own it. They generally make the same errors as creationists about what evolution is about.

Stalin would call everyone else who thought they were doing good for mankind by spreading communism, “useful idiots”.

Interesting comparison. Did you know that Stalin didn’t like Darwinism, either?

People were craving for this population control stuff in Darwin’s day (Darwin likely influenced by preconceived notions in his analysis).

Actually, before Darwin. There’s an allusion to it in Charles Dickens’s “A Christmas Carol.”

They forgot something, though, before promoting macroevolution, the scientific method.

Perhaps you never read Darwin’s book. Or are you unfamiliar with the way the scientific method works?

Question about nature (why is life so diverse? How did it happen?)

Hypothesis: (maybe it’s like animal breeding, with nature selecting the fit)

Test: (observe the evidence in nature for the hypothesis)

Analyze: (consider the evidence of intermediates, fossils, anatomy, the nested heirarchy of life, vestigial traits, etc.)

Conclude: (descent with modification explains all these facts)

Unfortunately, there is nothing concrete to study to determine that one species can become another.

Not only does all the evidence indicate this, it’s been directly observed to happen.

An old Earth is another topic, but it’s just as likely two cousins of hominid primates lived at the same time–the human, always human, survived; the non-human didn’t (probably because God gave humans a soul and it was not important the other went extinct). Apes may have microevolved as far as they could as they are still here.

There was a time when there were hominids but no anatomically modern humans. The fossil record shows that they arrived gradually, apparently by anagenesis from H. erectus.

We don’t have proof either way and not enough to teach it as fact.

It’s one of the best-documented theories in science.

Who cares though,about the scientific method. Fascism has no need for critics, but see them as a threat and thus, need to be silenced. We cannot get rid of blacks and the the infirm with those darn critics around.

Evolutionist are not racists because evolutionary theory shows that there are no biological human races. But as late as the 90s, a prominent creationist was attributing inferiority to blacks as a race.

(stuff about Masons and elites controlling the world)

This is the real world…face it.

I have to admit this seems more about your fears than about the real world.

 

[mich2]

Unfortunately you are way out of date.

Actually the work is dated from 1999; and is therefore not more anterior than what you have given me.

McFadden, JJ and Al-Khalili (1999). A quantum mechanical model of adaptive mutations. Biosystems 50: 203-211.

More recent work has shown that, although bacteria under stress do mutate more rapidly (in fact, the ability to do that has itself evolved), they do not mutate preferentially at beneficial sites. See for example
Foster, Adaptive Mutations, Genetics 148, 1453 - 1459, 1998
Taddeo et al, Role of Mutator alleles in Adaptive Evolution, Nature 387, 700 - 702, 1997
Foster, Mechanisms of stationary Phase Mutation, Ann Rev Gen 33, 57 - 88, 1999
plus others I can cite if needed.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Noboby claim this to be a clear cut and dry hypothesis. Nothing in nature works this well. The point is that mutation is something still very mysterious and the logic is getting away from it as being something accidental in nature.The term “adaptive mutation” itself is new, and identifies this process to be separate
from the normal random (or what we may believe to be random)
mutation which exists when no enviromental stress is applied to the lifeform.
My point being that, if adaptive mutation is a responsive reaction of a lifeform towards it’s environment, as oppose to other accidental, and random types of mutations,then, it would be reasonable to claim evolutionary processes to be due to the same type of mutation or even maybe a different, more
specialized type of mutation, not yet observed.

Andre

 

[mich2]

I’m not a physicist, but they tell me there is evidence suggesting it. If so, it’s a scientific concept.

I fully agree to it being a scientific theory and fully agree that it ought to be taught in science classes. Now the second question was; is it a metaphysical concept? No one can deny the point of singularity is metaphysical in nature, since it has an infinite spacetime curvarture as well as an infinite mass density…all of physical laws, such as GR collapse at the singularity, and therefore can never be directly observed.My point is that other metaphysical implications, such as evolution being possibly a characteristic of life no less than reproduction and growth, through the process of purposeful types of mutations, can also be hypothized. While I am not claiming to have enough evidence to speak of it in terms of a theory, I believe the evidence is there to at least introduce it as being a plausible hypothesis, yes, even in science classes.

Bararian observes:
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.

Do you mean to say that science “knows” that evolution is accidental in nature?

Various experiments have shown them to arrive randomly.

Again, are you speaking of evolution, or mutations? While there are accidental and random mutations (life is not perfect), another term has “evolved” called adaptive mutation, which seems to be caused by a “response” of the lifeform towards a harsh environment, and is viewed as being different from other types of mutations which exists when the lifeorm is free from environmental stresses. In other words, evolution was thought of as being an accidental and random process because mutation was thought to be totally random. Now scientist are getting away from this way of thinking. How the process of adaptive mutation fully works is still very much unknown, and is also controversial.

Haven’t seen any evidence for anything but natural causes. Do you have checkable evidence for any?

The development of a foetus involves only natural causes; however, it doesn’t mean that natural is equivalent to it being non-purposeful.

He’s decidedly in the minority on this, among his fellows, and while that doesn’t guarantee he’s wrong, it should give you pause unless you can grasp the argument.

But are you saying that his hypothesis isn’t valid because he represents a minority, or because his hypothesis isn’t scientific? Remember Einstein was a minority for a long while before his theory received support.

Free protons, yes. Those bound in nucleii stay there, unless the atom changes into that of another element.

Are you saying that protons do not experience quantum non-locality effects unless they are free from their nucleus?

Barbarian observes:
The difference between speculating about “quantum worlds” and natural selection is that there is evidence for the latter.

If we didn’t have scientific evidence for quantum dimentions, Quantum Mechanics would not be considered science.

The other hypothesis lacks evidence and seems untestable.

The same could be said for the Singularity.

I didn’t. “Accidental” is not a scientific concept. And mutation rates at various loci normally have various rates, including rates of back mutation. What is random is precisely when the mutation occurs.

…having some Quantum characteristic might the reason as to why quantum effect are being hypothized.

If so, then a rock rolling down a hill is purposeful. Neither requires any outside intelligence to happen.

A rolling rock, in itself is natural, but not purposeful, unless a system induced the rock to roll for a purpose.

Comes down to evidence. Which is why it doesn’t get much support.

They are in the process of struggling in trying to understand what adaptive mutation is all about…this evidence, which, to the very least,is an obstacle to the hypothesis of mutations being totally random.

pnews.org/ArT/TrU/QuantumEvolution.shtml
We have all been brought up on the neodarwinian synthesis of Darwinian natural selection with Mendelian genetics that states that the only significant lifestyle change to befall any microbe mutations are entirely random. The dogma states that mutations provide the raw material for evolution but natural selection provides the direction of evolutionary change. This dogma has been the central plank of evolutionary theory for nearly a century. But is it always true?

Andre

 

[foolishmortal]

Very decent way of stating your point. Still, if the Earth rotates its axis or poles shift, or whatever wacky changes the Earth can go through that throws nature off its balance (not to mention a comet that some call “Planet X”, which apparently flies by every few thousand years) could any species really have time to mutate to another kind of creature–esp. such a change for more advanced species like the bigger apes and people? Wouldn’t the ones already living either die out or keep going, but in an environment in which they would not have time to adapt to one change because of changing natural forces upon it or they would not need to mutate because not much has changed anyway (I don’t know which is more true in observable natural sciences)? Someone who believes in macroevolution said 2000 years is a miniscule time in the process of evolution.

The Pharisees (that I’m calling anyone a Pharisee now) believed it was not reasonable Christ could be born as a peasant as they were expecting a kingly king, not to mention they were like health and wealth Jews, and what they found in the Bible (their version of natural sciences or archaeology) was what they were primed to see. Interestingly, it was someone like Herod the Great–a noone in the field of Biblical theology, probably–who saw Jesus as a threat to his throne with the aide of astrologers (or was it the Magi, who were not Biblical authorities?) as his scientists? Anyway, the ones with authority can easily abuse their field because of special interests and/or disordered thinking. If there is any truth to macroevolution, I would not trust it from the ones calling the shots or those who obey their teachings. Without hard observable proof, I will believe that it’s more likely Adam and Eve named all the animals there were and still are. A lot of weird, coincidental things can happen as evidence for a conclusion in one’s mind, but then you get into faith.

The best way is to drop evolution and teach students the scientific method and how to use the equipment and send them out to discover for themselves what they find, not telling them what they probably will discover or what they ought to discover. I think that would further science the best.

 

[steveandersen]

………
The best way is to drop evolution and teach students the scientific method and how to use the equipment and send them out to discover for themselves what they find, not telling them what they probably will discover or what they ought to discover. I think that would further science the best.

Are you suggesting that each generation should reinvent the wheel?
That would be an inordinate waste of time and effort.

The beauty of living in a literate society is that we get to stand on the shoulders of those who went before us.

When I was in school we did study the development of ideas and where they came from. We reproduced some of Joule’s and Newton’s work (I’ve even seen kits that teachers can buy to duplicate some of Mendel’s or Darwin’s work). Any science curriculum worth its salt should have both laboratory and lecture classes.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

you claim that evolution “as taught in our schools is actually used to promote atheism.” How is it taught ? How would you teach it differently? How are atheists promoting atheism? Is it the teachers? The school board? or the authors of the texts? I cannot agree or disagree until you explain this to me.

You of course need not prove anything, but your argument of course suffers for that. Science cannot prove anything to 100% certainty. That certainly doesn’t keep it from making good choices based on probabilities that seem to work out for the world at large. Let’s not try to use the very specific and largely misunderstood doctrine of “nothing can be proven in science”.

Okay, I agree, darwin was not an atheist. So you call it darwinian evolution but as apposed to what other kind of evolution? What do you want to do about the fact that some people try to use evolution as a means of convincing someone else that God doesnt exist?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Yes, we Americans are “confused.”

More condescension.

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.

You can interpret how you choose, but the fact remains that this is largely an American problem. If that’s embarassing to you, I can understand, its embarassing to me as well.

We can call it anything you wish. I’d just suggest ID causes some folks to automatically bristle, so I’d choose another one. Whatever it is, as soon as it can meet the standards of being called a scientific inquiry, it no doubt will be.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

Yes, we’ve been over this so many times now that we all know the drill. Science doesnt address God, Theology does.

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.

Indeed, some do not believe. We are much luckier. We do.

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.

Good that’s a beginning. I’m not sure its their spiritual inclination but I agree we are prone to sin, and when we are thinking of sin or engaging in sin we are not thinking of 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.

Yes the books themselves make no claim at all about God. We are still neutral after having read them, and we still have 2 choices. Correct, the Church so teaches. (I’m not sure there is such a thing as neo-darwinism except in some philosophical sense. I doubt there are any neo-darwinian scientists since they would have ceased to be scientists, correct? ) But an explanation by some of their theological position that evolution removes any need for God is by my belief incorrect. I agree, that the Church properly speaks directly to believers and not to science.

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.

No, now you have lost your logical compass again. science has not told anyone that the process occured entirely on its own. You have already admitted this, look up. It is no more an encouragement to atheists or believers. It is neutral as YOU already pointed out. The “wrong” message may be being sent, but its not science that is sending it, as you have previously acknowledged.

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.

Agreed, it is error for a believer to disbelieve the Church and rely only on science for the answer. People who don’t agree, we both agree are wrong, regardless of their right to be wrong. No one believes the Church only kinda sorta believes. She believes as do we.

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.

Yes many do try to ignore their spiritural selves. That is sad indeed. I’m not sure what one’s attendance at mass or what tenets they follow or don’t has to do with this issue. What do you propose as an answer?

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

See, we have no disagreement at all. But I have a small question. Given the last statement would not your efforts be better served in trying to convince atheists where ever they are (you spoke about other forums you attend) what they are missing?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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?

No I certainly havent read it and can think of no reason I particularly want to. He is a human. He has the right to write a book and get it published. Is there something illegal he is doing? Many thousands of books are published each year that I might well consign to the garbage heap. What is your point?

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 what? why do you care what his opinion is?

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.

Ed we all get that you are horribly concerned with atheists. Again, what is your point here? You’ve been arguing for weeks now, and it all has finally come down to your fear of atheists. Then go and address atheists. Why are you trying to mislead fellow CAtholics as you have in weeks past, that somehow science must address this issue? Clearly you have admitted your fight is not with science but with atheists.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

He is an individual writing a book. He can make any claims he wishes. Much like Brown did regarding the Da Vinci Code. No one has an need to take cognizance of his opinions. They are his. People use the gigantic petrogliphs (sp) in S. American and conclude that spacemen have visited earth. That’s squirrelly too in my opinion, yet I don’t deny them the right to write a book.

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.

No Dawkins uses evolution to make his own statement of what he believes it means. He is an atheist. What would you expect him to say? I really don’t get why this is hard.

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.

Yeah, the guy sounds like a real nut. I wouldn’t read him. I thought Mein Kamph was purely idiotic as well. What is your point?

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

Evolutionists have absolutely no business refuting Dawkins at all. They are scientists. The Church properly is the one to refute Dawkins “conclusions”. The fact that Dawkins has some adherents or even many has nothing to do with this. Some may be other scientists. Again, so what? It’s his personal opinion, as anyone can obviously see. If they cannot then the Church has not been doing its job well in explaining things to people better.

 

[ricmat]

you claim that evolution “as taught in our schools is actually used to promote atheism.” How is it taught ? How would you teach it differently? How are atheists promoting atheism? Is it the teachers? The school board? or the authors of the texts? I cannot agree or disagree until you explain this to me.

It depends on the school (or college). My main issue is that evolution (and by that I mean random mutations plus natural selection) is taught as a hard fact, in the absence of “beyond a reasonable doubt” sort of proof. This is true (IMO) of all levels of school. It is a theory to explain the development of complex life, but one with many holes in it.

Textbooks continue to include pro-evolution scenarios which have actually been proven false - such as a human embryo itself going through evolutionary stages with “gills”.

I have no issue with teaching this sort of evolution as a theory (minus the outright lies of course), along with “and here’s the problems with this theory.”

You are free to disagree of course, but in my opinion there is an across the board effort by atheists to use whatever arguments they can find to undercut God, and religion. The evolution scenario above is only one element.

I’ve brought up the “fine tuning” argument for the universe as well. It shares with the evolution debate an argument that “It’s beyond a reasonable doubt that this could have happened strictly through random events.” The arguments for this are quite powerful. As a defensive measure, atheists have latched onto the totally unverifiable idea of “infinitely many universes, all somehow coming to be randomly, and only one of which had to come out right.”

You of course need not prove anything, but your argument of course suffers for that. Science cannot prove anything to 100% certainty. That certainly doesn’t keep it from making good choices based on probabilities that seem to work out for the world at large. Let’s not try to use the very specific and largely misunderstood doctrine of “nothing can be proven in science”.

Nothing can be proven in science - I wasn’t the first to bring that up I mentioned it only in the sense of “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” And the gander responded, as always, with insults. I’m actually all for the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.

Okay, I agree, darwin was not an atheist. So you call it darwinian evolution but as apposed to what other kind of evolution? What do you want to do about the fact that some people try to use evolution as a means of convincing someone else that God doesnt exist?

It became apparent to me fairly lately that people here have different definitions of ID, evolution, creationism, and many other terms. Many heated arguments are taking place because of these different definitions.

I believe that the common usage of “evolution” (no qualifiers) refers to an unguided process of random (as in, uncontrolled) mutations followed by natural selection. I also believe that this sort of evolution, whether strictly correct or not is usually referred to as “Darwinian evolution”. Let’s not get hung up on the name, it’s the concept that’s important. Although I admit the possibility that God could have used Darwinian evolution alone to “randomly” create complex life, I believe that randomness doesn’t do the trick, and that some guidance along the way was required.

The reasons I believe this are many, and have accrued over a period of many years. But I don’t have “proof-ready” arguments handy just waiting for somebody to ask. And certainly I am allowed to believe something (without ridicule) even though I can’t prove it to someone else.

I can steer you to a few books whose names I remember. And I can ask you to read them with an open mind. Perhaps they would provide convincing arguments to you, perhaps not.

Finally, what would I do about the situation? Mainly, I ask that when evolution is taught, that it be made clear that there are holes in the theory (and what some of them are). And (optimistically), I’d like to see some mention that science can neither prove, nor disprove God. But that’s probably asking for too much. IMO without explicitly saying this, in today’s world where science has much credibility, students will assume the worst.

Regarding books (on the fine tuning arguments) - there are many by Gerald Schroeder - Genesis and the Big Bang is good but so are his others. Also, by Paul Davies - The Mind of God. And “A Meaningful World” which is less technical. Other good books - “50 Questions on the Natural Law”, and The Science Before Science (which is 2/3 philosophy).

 

[ricmat]

You can interpret how you choose, but the fact remains that this is largely an American problem. If that’s embarassing to you, I can understand, its embarassing to me as well.

We can call it anything you wish. I’d just suggest ID causes some folks to automatically bristle, so I’d choose another one. Whatever it is, as soon as it can meet the standards of being called a scientific inquiry, it no doubt will be.

It’s not embarrassing to me at all, quite the contrary.

When ID is defined as 6 day creationism, as some have attempted to do on this forum, I agree that it is not science. I have stated many times that what is at issue is not whether the researchers have religious motives, but the methods, data, and interpretation of the data. To say that “when it can meet the standards…it no doubt will be” is to assume open minds which in many cases do not exist. They have closed themselves to scientific inquiry by stating in advance of any actual inquiry that something cannot be. Which is more of a religious argument really.