Gaps in Evolution

[buffalo]

Idvolution -
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2009-07-22T14_48_15-07_00

Historian Explodes Stereotypes About Intelligent Design

 

[josie_L]

No, it doesn’t necessarily mean that “our” universe came out of nothing. It means that God is the ground of all being, the one who sustains everything in existence, whether that refers to a single universe or an oscillating series of universes of which our universe is a part. God will continue to sustain the universe in being hundreds of billions of years into the future, long after humans have gone extinct, long after the earth has been incinerated by the sun, long after our sun has winked out and the black hole at the center has swallowed much of the Milky Way galaxy. God will still be God, enfolding all creation in divine love.

StAnastasia

Is this your take Anastasia or that of the Church? Furthermore, I don’t believe in multiverses because one, we don’t have proof of it, two, we would never be able to observe it, and three, there would be no way of knowing (scientifically) whether there was a first cause (atheists could then believe that there is an eternal chain of universes and we could not argue this point as we would have nothing more than our separate viewpoints to back us up) So do you see the dilemma that multiverses represent. Our universe (the only one that we know exists) however has a first cause because we know through science it has a starting point (and nothing can come out of nothing). Also, God made the world so we could discover it (so we could see how it points to Him) as such multiverses would prevent us from seeing the hand of God, i.e., the first cause, in such a development.

 

[josie_L]

What you said was: “From what I understand multiverses are like an (endless) eternal production line of universes (without a first cause) wherein by the time our universe is born chance happens to bring about life.”

My question: why do assume that an eternal series of universe is “without a first cause”? How do you understand “first cause”?

I would not assume it but others would (and are).

 

[StAnastasia]

Furthermore, I don’t believe in multiverses… So do you see the dilemma that multiverses represent. Our universe (the only one that we know exists) however has a first cause because we know through science it has a starting point (and nothing can come out of nothing).

Joseph, I don’t believe in multiverses either, nor do I believe in gravity, evolution or plate tectonics. I believe in God.

However, a multiverse presents no greater problem with respect to causation than does a single universe – both demand a first cause. Science cannot “prove” there is a creator of either a single universe or a multiverse. Science is incapable of seeing before the “big bang.” The existence of God is therefore a matter of faith, not of science.

StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

The existence of God is therefore a matter of faith, not of science.

StAnastasia

By all means, the realm of science is that of the material and physical world. But that does not automatically exclude the immaterial or spiritual realm from inquiry as if it were non-existent. Ah, one says. The immaterial cannot be put under a microscope. True. But that does not eliminate the reality of its existence which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.

The biggest, the very biggest, gap in evolution is the lack of explanation for the human species.

 

[StAnastasia]

The biggest, the very biggest, gap in evolution is the lack of explanation for the human species.

I was not aware there was a lack of evolution for the human species. What is this “gap” of which you speak?

 

[StAnastasia]

I was not aware there was a lack of evolution for the human species. What is this “gap” of which you speak?

Sorry – I meant to say “I’m not aware of a lack of evidence for evolution of the human species.” I work with evolutionary biologists, physical anthropologists, geologists, geneticists and paleontologists. They are all convinced that the evidence supporting human evolution is overwhelming. I have no reason – either scientific or theological – to contradict them. In fact, I find the idea of human evolution to be theologically exciting and fruitful.

StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

I was not aware there was a lack of evolution for the human species. What is this “gap” of which you speak?

Most people have no clue that evolutionists can only explain part of what makes up a human being. Thus, there is the lack of knowledge about who we really are.

For the curious, knowing that human nature is an intimate union of body and soul helps answer basic life questions such as: Where do we come from? Where are we going? What is our origin? What is our end?

 

[grannymh]

Sorry – I meant to say “I’m not aware of a lack of evidence for evolution of the human species.” I work with evolutionary biologists, physical anthropologists, geologists, geneticists and paleontologists. They are all convinced that the evidence supporting human evolution is overwhelming. I have no reason – either scientific or theological – to contradict them. In fact, I find the idea of human evolution to be theologically exciting and fruitful.

StAnastasia

There is no doubt in my mind that there is evidence for the material evolution of the human species. What is lacking is respect for the non-material elements. Only half of a person is being considered. That sounds like a gap in knowledge.

 

[josie_L]

Joseph, I don’t believe in multiverses either, nor do I believe in gravity, evolution or plate tectonics. I believe in God.

However, a multiverse presents no greater problem with respect to causation than does a single universe – both demand a first cause. Science cannot “prove” there is a creator of either a single universe or a multiverse. Science is incapable of seeing before the “big bang.” The existence of God is therefore a matter of faith, not of science.

StAnastasia

I didn’t say anything about proving, but I do believe that God gave us certain means and ways to know about him through creation. He also expressly made the Universe as He did and gave us the necessary intellectual skills that we possess to point us in his direction. Faith and reason we are told are like the wings of a bird one without the other will not allow the bird to fly. We can see God in both (obviously however faith is the greater component). My point is that God would not create a multiverse because He made a world expressly so we can see His hand in it and that is not possible with such a hypothesis.

P.S. My name is Josephine (but Josie for short).

 

[Charles_Darwin]

There is no doubt in my mind that there is evidence for the material evolution of the human species. What is lacking is respect for the non-material elements. Only half of a person is being considered. That sounds like a gap in knowledge.

“non-material elements.” Like?

Provide me with one piece of evidence for “non-material elements.”.

 

[grannymh]

“non-material elements.” Like?

Provide me with one piece of evidence for “non-material elements.”.

There is a process of analytical thought which asks the question – What is not there?
The inventors responsible for the industrial revolution constantly asked that question.
If Edison did not ask that question, we would be using our computers by candle light.

If the material physical human body does not provide the answer to a question concerning the origin of a particular human action, then the question has to be asked – What is missing from the definition of human nature?

Do alley cats design the acoustics of an opera house so that their singing can be appreciated by large crowds? Where is the evidence regarding alley cats’ engineering feats?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

There is a process of analytical thought which asks the question – What is not there?
The inventors responsible for the industrial revolution constantly asked that question.
If Edison did not ask that question, we would be using our computers by candle light.

If the material physical human body does not provide the answer to a question concerning the origin of a particular human action, then the question has to be asked – What is missing from the definition of human nature?

Do alley cats design the acoustics of an opera house so that their singing can be appreciated by large crowds? Where is the evidence regarding alley cats’ engineering feats?

Material physical human body does provide the answer. It’s called the brain.

 

[grannymh]

Material physical human body does provide the answer. It’s called the brain.

Unfortunately, I’m leaving town so I need to be brief. However, there was some interesting research done during “Awake Brain Surgery” in France. The brain is only half the answer. Speaking as an evolutionist, the brain is very important – don’t get me wrong. But when one dissects the report, it is clear that the brain is not the whole answer. Do be careful of the opening “conclusions” especially when one considers the use of a bipolar electrode.

Source: Desmurget et al, Movement Intention after Parietal Cortex Stimulation in Humans, Science 324 811 – 813 (2009)

For an understanding of “Awake Brain Surgery”: www.mayoclinic.org/awake-brain-surgery/brain-mapping,html

 

[StAnastasia]

I didn’t say anything about proving, but I do believe that God gave us certain means and ways to know about him through creation. He also expressly made the Universe as He did and gave us the necessary intellectual skills that we possess to point us in his direction. Faith and reason we are told are like the wings of a bird one without the other will not allow the bird to fly. We can see God in both (obviously however faith is the greater component). My point is that God would not create a multiverse because He made a world expressly so we can see His hand in it and that is not possible with such a hypothesis.

P.S. My name is Josephine (but Josie for short).

Josie, you took the liberty of altering my screen name to “Anastasia,” so I was merely returning the compliment by altering yours to “Joseph.”

Why is it any less possible to see God’s hand if the world is a multiverse rather than a universe? It seems that you want unduly to limit God’s creative power, for reasons I cannot fathom. God is God; She can do what She wants; the possibilities for divine creativity are infinite! Even if we could never detect the universe that preceded our “Big Bang,” God would be its first and final cause; God would be the ground of being of every universe.

StAnastasia

 

[josie_L]

Josie, you took the liberty of altering my screen name to “Anastasia,” so I was merely returning the compliment by altering yours to “Joseph.”

Why is it any less possible to see God’s hand if the world is a multiverse rather than a universe? It seems that you want unduly to limit God’s creative power, for reasons I cannot fathom. God is God; She can do what She wants; the possibilities for divine creativity are infinite! Even if we could never detect the universe that preceded our “Big Bang,” God would be its first and final cause; God would be the ground of being of every universe.

StAnastasia

Did it ever occur to you that it felt odd calling you “St.” Anastasia (since you’re not a saint I just shortened your name to Anastasia)? I hardly think you can fault me for that. Anyways It wasn’t done purposely (with malicious intent). As for God, I don’t doubt that He can do anything He pleases (as He is unlimited in his powers) but that’s not what I’m contesting, I state what I state because of scripture and what we already know of God, I think I made myself clear enough on the subject. But if you wish me to explain again, here goes, God obviously would have to be the first cause of any universe that existed however, God created our universe out of nothing “ex nihilo” I take this to mean that nothing can precede nothing. Furthermore, I think God in his wisdom and because He loves us infinitely and unconditionally would devise a universe that we could explore so we could come to the knowledge (not just through faith but reason as well) that he is the first cause (because it is not so obvious to others that God exists or is the first cause or that there is a first cause).

 

[StAnastasia]

God created our universe out of nothing “ex nihilo” I take this to mean that nothing can precede nothing. Furthermore, I think God in his wisdom and because He loves us infinitely and unconditionally would devise a universe that we could explore so we could come to the knowledge (not just through faith but reason as well) that he is the first cause (because it is not so obvious to others that God exists or is the first cause or that there is a first cause).

“Ex nihilo” is an interesting speculation with a long history. Genesis seems to support a variety of possible interpretations, including pre-exisiting chaos or “tohu bohu” (Hebrew). In any case, my vision is that God, being infinite, infinitely exceeds our capability to grasp the whole of reality. And God is the first cause, whether of a single universe or of an eternal succession of universes.

StAnastasia

 

[edwest2]

We are not haphazard mistakes.

Adam and Eve were real people. The Bible tells us that through one man sin entered the world.

That’s what Catholics need to know.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

We are not haphazard mistakes.

Of course we aren’t. Natural selection is involved!

Adam and Eve were real people.

Metaphorically speaking, yes.

The Bible tells us that through one man sin entered the world.

The Bible isn’t necessarily the final authority, as you well know. What is found in the Bible isn’t necessarily to be taken literally, as you well know.

 

[edwest2]

Of course we aren’t. Natural selection is involved!

Metaphorically speaking, yes.

The Bible isn’t necessarily the final authority, as you well know. What is found in the Bible isn’t necessarily to be taken literally, as you well know.

The bible is the final authority. In fact, it is the first authority. Some people wish that the Bible cannot be taken literally, but this is not true. What is made plain to the faithful is hidden from those outside the faith. Adam and Eve were two individuals, made by God.

bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

Pope Benedict XVI

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.

Peace,
Ed