P
PraRFLEsEkHm
Guest
Glory to the Lord Jesus Christ and the Blessed Trinity.
Peace
John
Peace
John
- Status
P
PraRFLEsEkHm
Guest
Thank-You
Peace to you
John
T
TheRaiders
Guest
This idea of a “guiding hand” by God in evolution sounds good because it is a compromise of sorts, but lets look at why it doesn’t fit with what we know of science.
If it was God’s plan that us humans eventually, and at the right time in history, come from the initial beginnings of life, then imagine all of the divine interventions that would have had to happen along the way. In fact, I propose that for the complex life that exists today, including us, to exist from evolution, God’s hand could have never been idle in shaping the way the actions of nature turned out (if it was His plan to have a bieng called man in His image). A lot had to go right for life to exist at all (how many other planets with life have we found out there?) and for it to turn into humans (God’s plan) there are an infininte number of scenarios that could have derailed that track of evolution along the way. So if we are to accept a guided evolution, then we must accept a God that does not allow His creation to play out naturally according to His laws. This is a God that is perpetually intervening.
Did you know western science was allowed to blossom under the opposite notion? Christian science (not the cult) was allowed to blossom under the notion that their God allowed nature to run according to His laws without intervening except in extreme cases. The Greko-roman philosophy, was the opposite of that.
So it isn’t a scientifically-solid stance to compromise with a “guided evolution” stance. Maybe God did guide evolution, but this just isn’t the way science has looked at the world for hundreds of years.
Patrick
T
TheRaiders
Guest
By the wayI appreciate the increased civility on this thread and I apologize for anything I contributed to the petty, vindictive nature it had for a while.
I love you all.
Patrick
I love you all.
Patrick
P
PraRFLEsEkHm
Guest
I have a question. If I understand what you are saying correctly - and that’s usually a pretty large ‘IF’ - you’re saying that in order for man to have followed the evolutionary path ‘At All’ in the ‘guided’ sense, God would have had to have intervened numerous times along the way - as is NOT shown by the evidence we have available to us, or at least not all that plausible. Correct?
My qustion is, Genesis states that God ‘Formed man of the dust of the ground’, this implies that man was either:
A) A special creation - ‘as is’ so to speak.
or
B) The ‘Proto-Human’, for lack of a better term, the line that man came from - was specially created. With the specific intention that man, along with apes, be the end result.
Is that (either one of the two scenarios - but specifically ''B") contradictory to anything we find, genetically or in the fossil record?
Peace
John
J
Joe_Gloor
Guest
I’d just like to point out here that it is Catholic Dogma that God is actively holding the universe in existence and that if He stopped it would cease to exist.
This infallible statement was made to correct the false claim of Deism which stated that God began creation and let it ‘run’ itself.
God knows the number of hairs on your head and when a bird falls to the ground.
That being said, I believe in ‘guided’ evolution insofar as how things turned out, according to His plan, just as I believe in the power of prayer to affect the way things turn out.
That does not mean that I believe that God literally took a pile of dust and directly created a living man from it.
But the existence of the universe and the life we know of in it, is proof to me that God does exist.
But of course, this is in the realm of Faith - not science.
Science is simply observation and conclusions based on facts. Science can only say what happened and it’s apparent causes.
This infallible statement was made to correct the false claim of Deism which stated that God began creation and let it ‘run’ itself.
God knows the number of hairs on your head and when a bird falls to the ground.
That being said, I believe in ‘guided’ evolution insofar as how things turned out, according to His plan, just as I believe in the power of prayer to affect the way things turn out.
That does not mean that I believe that God literally took a pile of dust and directly created a living man from it.
But the existence of the universe and the life we know of in it, is proof to me that God does exist.
But of course, this is in the realm of Faith - not science.
Science is simply observation and conclusions based on facts. Science can only say what happened and it’s apparent causes.
M
mike182d
Guest
That is a bit naive to say the least. Evolution is entirely unfalsifiable. If an organism exhibits characteristics of design, its a product of evolution. If an organism fails to exhibit characteristics of design, its a product of evolution. There is absolutely no discovery that could “disprove” evolution as a scientific theory because of it vagueness. All discoveries can in one way or another be included into the evolutionary model.
Why would nipples on birds discredit evolution? Lack of function? Penguins, alleged birds, possess wings but cannot fly and yet they pose no threat to evolution. Furthermore, evolution is not solely concerned with function. Its foundational premise is the creation of a species through random genetic mutations. If there was a fossil found of a mammal with feathers, it could *easily *be explained away by evolutionists as being the product of random mutations that failed and thus consistent with their existing model of evolution.
Evolution as a theory amounts to nothing more than saying that things change and the fact that they change is true because of the fact that they change.
Name one thing that could possibly disprove the theory of evolution in its current state. I’m all ears. If it is not falsifiable, it is not a valid scientific theory.
A
AquinaSavio
Guest
Tim, please note that I personally was never questioning your Catholic faith or trying to insult you. I do appreciate your kind apology.
D
Donald45
Guest
Having often recommended further study of evolution to anti-evolutionists, I naturally included myself in the category of “arrogant evolutionists.” I apologize if I have been defending myself without reason, “beating the air,” as St. Paul wrote. I do uphold my observation that one’s character has no bearing on the truth-status of his scientific ideas. This is the case with anti-evolutionists (many, but not most, of whom are themselves arrogant) as well as with evolutionists. And yet, more important than all this, is the fact that we—whatever our scientific understanding—are all intimately related in Christ, if we in fact belong to Him. In this spirit, I agree, let’s put it behind us now.
God bless,
Don
D
Digger71
Guest
Multiple examples of falsifiability have been given.
First, I’ll refer to Karl Popper, who first claimed initially that evolution was unfalsifiable. It is Poppers initial statements that led to the creationist argument that evolution was unfalsifiable. However this was his view when he became batter informed on how evolution is considered.
Karl Poppers logical description of what the experiment describes.
“Biologists employ optimization analyses to predict which combinations of morphological, behavioral, or physiological traits are more likely to be advantageous (i.e., to increase “fitness”) in the range of environments actually encountered by a given living form. They then sample natural populations of organisms, determine in which environments they actually live, measure those traits they hypothesize are more likely to make a difference, and obtain statistical predictions on where natural selection should push the population next. Finally,biologists wait until the next generation of organisms comes out and measure their characteristics again.” (Dialectica 32:344-346).
But this is not your argument. Your argument is that a functional biological system demonstrates design. Well, this is not true. All definitely designed objects that we know of have additional evidence.
The first of these is that the object could not have been formed naturally. Early stone tools, ‘eoliths’ were taken has evidence of human manufacturing. But these can form naturally.
This is my general knowledge, but here is a back-up link. britannica.com/eb/article-39201, but I will quote directly:
The first act of the drama of tools is hazy. There are what have been called eoliths, “tools from the dawn of the Stone Age.” Such stones with sharp fractures, found in great quantities in layers from the geological epochs before the Pleistocene, were once assumed to be tokens of human presence in the preceding Pliocene and even earlier Miocene epochs. These rocks, fractured by glacier pressure, wave action, or temperature change, are no longer taken as indexes of humans, although primitive peoples undoubtedly used them as ready-made objects before they deliberately started to fracture similar rocks in the late Pliocene. There are detailed criteria by which human-flaked and nature-flaked stones can be distinguished almost unerringly. Human origin is also evidenced by association with detached flakes and the stones that served as hammers.
The point here is two fold. The eoliths certainly could be manufactured, but natural processes create the same effect. So we have to have other criteria for detecting the design.
And those additional criteria include tools and evidence of manufacture..
Mount Rushmore is a popular example. It seems clearly designed. But what about these clearly human like faces? forteantimes.com/gallery/simulacra.shtml
The difference with Rushmore is that evidence of working, the marks of tools are clearly discernable on the faces. We have additional evidence of design from historical records of their construction. This is simply not the case with biological systems. We have no tools, we have no tool marks, we have no workshop.
So, what the ID movement calls ‘characteristics of design’ really means ‘function’ but has no regard for all the known characteristics of design, tooling.
Tell me. Is this designed? google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=face+on+mars&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
R
R_McGeddon
Guest
2shelbys said:
OK here goes, I don’t know who or when, but a scientist once theorised that the Earth orbitted the Sun.
That is now irrefutably proven.
That one was from the top of my head, I could do a little research and find some more if you like.
A
AquinaSavio
Guest
One thing I have never heard an evolutionist offer an explanation for is an animal’s instinct. 
How would an evolving animal know what to do in it’s new surroundings? This is entirely possible in the theory of Theistic evolution, because God could instill the knowledge in the “new” animal. However, I don’t see how it could really be explained by atheistic evolutionists. Just wondering.
How would an evolving animal know what to do in it’s new surroundings? This is entirely possible in the theory of Theistic evolution, because God could instill the knowledge in the “new” animal. However, I don’t see how it could really be explained by atheistic evolutionists. Just wondering.
2
2shelbys
Guest
R McGeddon:
Actually, I did not ask that question. I answered it. Tim (Orogeny) asked it.
D
Donald45
Guest
Along these same lines, here’s an interesting passage from Philip Kitcher’s book:
"Creationists wheel out the ancient warhorse of naive falsificationism so that they can bolster their charge that evolutionary theory is not a science… Creationists can appeal to naive falsificationism to show that evolution is not a science. But given the traditional picture of theory and evidence I have sketched, one can appeal to naive falsificationism to show that any science is not a science. So, as with the charge that evolutionary change is unobservable, Creationists have again failed to find some ‘fault’ of evolution not shared by every other science. (And, as we shall see, Creationists like some sciences, especially thermodynamics.) Consistent application of naive falsificationism can show that anybody’s favorite science (whether it be quantum physics, molecular biology, or whatever) is not a science. Of course, what this shows is that the naive falsificationist criterion is a very poor test of genuine science. To be fair, this point can cut both ways. Scientists who charge that ‘scientific’ Creationism is unfalsifiable are not insulting the theory as much as they think" (Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism [MIT, 1982], p. 44).
In any case, food for thought.
Don
T
TheRaiders
Guest
In my last post, I am not talking about what is contradictory to evidence (which can be looked at more than one way), but what is contradictory to the way Christians have looked at the universe. I am proposing that for random mutations to have produced humans from pond scum, the possibility is next to zero. God wanted the possibiliy to be 100% (it has been revealed to us that it was his plan to have humans in his image). He could do this with one special creation, or he could do this over billions of years. In both cases He would have had to change the laws of the universe he created (create something out of nothing, going from less complex to more complex ordered organisms to name two).
Science has blossomed under the idea that God is no longer altering His laws. This is why miracles propose a problem for science. If altering of His laws were commonplace, miracles wouldn’t be a problem for science. This is why the second case (over billions of years) doesn’t fit the scientific understanding. I’m not saying it isn’t correct, but a guided evolution does pose a kind of conundrum for both hard line scientists and hard line Bible literalists. But both sides look at the laws of the universe differently. To an inteligent design fan, the laws of the universe are further proof of an inteligent designer. To a scientists, they are the basis for scientific study.
Patrick
R
rossum
Guest
I am not a Christian, nor do I accept theistic evolution, but from my understanding I would say that no interventions are required. If God is omniscient then He can foresee the exact consequences of all his actions. If God is omnipotent then he can perform whatever actions He wishes to. Given that God designed the universe, that He set the rules and that He determined the starting conditions then whatever happens within the rules is exactly determined by God. There is no intervention needed. Any requirement for intervention outside His own rules would show that either God did not know what would happen (not omniscient) or was not able to set up either the rules He wanted or the correct starting conditions (not omnipotent).
If I invent the rules of a card game and I also get to stack the deck beforehand then it is easy for me to ensure a winning hand for myself. God set the rules and God stacked the deck, so God will always get the result that He anticipated.
I would disagree with this. The requirement for intervention would show that God is either not omniscient, not omnipotent or both. It would be possible for God to intervene voluntarily, but it would not be a requirement. How can an omnipotent God be required to do anything?
Again I disagree with you. Science works to understand the laws of the universe and the starting conditions of the universe. To a theistic evolutionist these laws and starting conditions were created by God. From that point on God runs the universe according to His own laws, as intended and foreseen. There is no requirement for intervention outside the rules. This is a perfectly acceptable scientific position. The boundaries of science are respected by placing God’s intervention outside the boundary of science. A theistic scientist is merely discovering the work that God did in creating the universe and its laws.
rossum
T
TheRaiders
Guest
Joe Gloor:
I didn’t know that our belief that God is sustaining the universe is in response to Deism. Point well taken.
That said, guided evolution still poses a problem for both sides of the debate (darwinists vs. inteligent designists).
Patrick
This is an interesting point. If God were to suspend His laws, life would cease to exist. If even one seemingly simple law were different, life might not exist. I am not saying that God doesn’t run this universe;it all runs according to His laws. Baseball would cease to exist if the diamond, bat, ball, and fences were taken away. It would also cease to exist if the rules were taken away. But within those guidelines and specified playing field, each player is given ample opportunity to determine the outcome. This is how I look at life. I also look at prayer the same way as you.
I didn’t know that our belief that God is sustaining the universe is in response to Deism. Point well taken.
That said, guided evolution still poses a problem for both sides of the debate (darwinists vs. inteligent designists).
Patrick
D
Donald45
Guest
The concept of “theistic (guided) evolution” is an essentially theological position, every bit as much as are the ideas of “theistic medicine,” “theistic plumbing,” or “theistic football.” For the Christian, *everything *is “theistic” in that God omnipotently sustains and governs his creation as a whole, and every feature and phenomenon within it. To point to something in nature and insist, “God did that!” is hardly unique, since God did everything that could possibly be pointed to. (Of course, this is a *theological *conviction, not a scientific conclusion.) So, for a Christian to speak of “guided” evolution is simply to point out the obvious.
I believe that my baby daughter developed in her mother’s womb through a material process of conception and gestation, but I wouldn’t generally use the term “theistic gestation” to describe it, and neither would my wife’s obstetrician. No, it’s simply “gestation.” The “theistic” part, for the Christian, is merely a given, as it is with everything that happens in the world.
This is why I resist the idea of “theistic evolution,” because it really seems nonsensical to me. I don’t speak this way of other natural processes occurring all around me (“theistic chess”? “divine digestion”? “guided golf”? “theistic photosynthesis?” ), so why insist on contriving such a term in this case? It seems to cause more confusion than clarity.
Don
T
TheRaiders
Guest
Point well taken, I’ll think about this and respond. By the way, stop imposing absolute truths on me, becasue absolute truths do not exist.
M
mike182d
Guest
In this thread or elsewhere? I may have missed them and I have not heard any convincing proposals for whatadequately falsify evolution.
Does an organism owe its existence to its biological makeup and ability to adapt to its surrounding environment? The “advantageous” property of any organism’s traits is not an objective one that can be quatifiably measured. It is the subjective opinion of reasoned human beings viewing the history of life in retrospect and fitting it into their preconceived molds and ideas of how life works. Demonstrate to me, quantifiably, how it is more advantageous to have lungs over gills, or how it is more advantageous for survival to be on land rather than water. There are a multitude of mammals that live quite well with lungs and a mulititude of advanced animals that live quite well with gills. Furthermore, if biological advantages can be objectively and quantifiably measured, can evolution make any predictions for the future regarding which traits will succeed and which traits will eventually die off in organisms? Or what is the current perceived rate of evolution and what can we expect it to yield in the next 100, 1,000, or 1,000,000 years? Every other scientific study is quite capable of answering specific claims like this about the future. All I see from evolution is a clever story to explain the past with very little application to predicting the future evolution of species.
- Status