Given the principles of evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc, do you think belief in the supernatural will die out or become a m

[Eric_Hyom]

We know there is a difference. Those who understand evolution and those same people who need to believe in an original couple have a problem. After pointing that out, it’s something of a waste of time discussing it further.

But from that point onwards, we could discuss the allegorical and spiritual implications of Genesis OR we could discuss the process of evolution. It’s not possible to blend the two. They are completely, totally and undeniably at odds with each other. Pick one and it denies the other.

The bottom line of the problem is God, and you know that. Life is too complex, and even if evolution happened as you say, it could not happen without God to guide it.

You are simply trying to use the almighty ToE as a means of worship, she is all powerful and can do all things.

God the creator of all that is seen and unseen exists fully and totally, and there is the need to search for our creator.

 

[rossum]

The bottom line of the problem is God, and you know that. Life is too complex, and even if evolution happened as you say, it could not happen without God to guide it.

Not a good argument. You are explaining the complexity of life by asserting the existence of an even more complex being, God, and providing no explanation for the origin of the complexity of God.

Evolutionary processes can increase complexity, and have been observed to increase complexity. There is no reason to doubt that over time evolutionary processes can increase complexity to the levels observed in humans (3 billion base pairs of DNA) or onions (16 billion base pairs of DNA).

rossum

 

[Eric_Hyom]

What you post is an indication that you don’t understand the basics of evolution. To do what you suggested is easy to calculate. Pick a random sequence of cards and if you want to know the odds of a specific order being selected, it’s factorial 52. **Written as 52! It’s a reasonably large number:

80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000.**

Why do you keep insisting on quoting such small odds. The eye did not evolve in 52 random steps, the number is around 1800 incremental steps, give or take 29.

Big, huh? Impossible, actually, to comprehend. But evolution doesn’t shuffle 52 options with the hope of getting an eye from nothing. It wouldn’t happen. However…

52 again!

What happens is that getting a tiny advantage over the guy next door means that you generally live longer and that you pass on that advantage. So if the ace of spades gives you an advantage for some reason, then it will only need 52 organisms ‘taking a card’ for the odds of one of them getting the ace to be 1.

Leave the small numbers alone, my head hurts.

Now this is the vitally important point and if you don’t understand this, there is no point in continuing. Whoever drew the ace GETS TO KEEP IT. And more importantly, he passes it on to the next generation.

So if you drew the ace, you have a small, but significant, chance of surviving long enough to pass it on to your daughter. Then you shuffle and everyone makes another selection.

All those who already had the ace (on average there will be 100 if there are 5200 people drawing cards) are now looking to draw the deuce of spades. On average, two of them will do it. And keep it. And pass it on. And those with both cards will have an even greater chance of passing on the benefit to multiple generations.

As you said, rinse and repeat. You don’t need to get everything you need in one hit. See the number above for the impossibility of that with just 52 options. You just need a tiny advantage and the ability to pass that advantage on to successive generations so that they can build on it.

Thank you, I know the theory, but please stop, no more 52’s,

Quite simple really.

Ok, if you keep insisting, let’s look at your odds of 52…

80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000

It took around 500,000 generations for the eye to evolve. Divide your small number by 500,000, and we see the odds, and the scale of the problem each generation would have to overcome.

Of course we would not want to limit ourselves to small odds, so you could try the same calculations again, but use 1800 instead of 52.

 

[Bradski]

The bottom line of the problem is God, and you know that. Life is too complex, and even if evolution happened as you say, it could not happen without God to guide it.

I’ve no problem with that, Eric. None whatsoever. Now we both know how He did it.

 

[Bradski]

Of course we would not want to limit ourselves to small odds, so you could try the same calculations again, but use 1800 instead of 52.

No…the large number is how YOU think it works. Akin to the risible 747 in a junkyard example. If we stick with 52 cards for a moment, to get the ace, you would need on average, 26 attempts to draw it. Then you keep it and you need the deuce for another slight improvement, it will take another 26 attempts.

I hope you’d be able to work out that it would only take 52 x 26 draws to get a perfect set of cards, which is 1352. If you have an hour spare, then try it. And if you want to use 1800, then the number becomes 1800 x 900 which is 1.62 million.

Now PLEASE don’t confuse that number with the ones in the article to which I linked. There are other features that come into play and those were taken into consideration. Population genetics isn’t the same as drawing cards. Those that have the advantage pass it on so it spreads and there are more individuals available for the next advantage.

God has set it up quite neatly. Well, He is omnipotent, so it was a walk in the park really.

 

[tonyrey]

Not a good argument. You are explaining the complexity of life by asserting the existence of an even more complex being, God, and providing no explanation for the origin of the complexity of God.

Divine complexity only exists in your imagination! It is highly presumptuous for a creature with limited insight and knowledge to reject the existence of the Creator without whom he wouldn’t even exist

Evolutionary processes can increase complexity, and have been observed to increase complexity. There is no reason to doubt that over time evolutionary processes can increase complexity to the levels observed in humans (3 billion base pairs of DNA) or onions (16 billion base pairs of DNA).

No one has ever explained the origin of complexity which is a disadvantage for survival. The fact that amoeba have outlasted dinosaurs demonstrates that “survival value” is a hopelessly inadequate explanation. Life itself is inexplicable, let alone the existence of rational beings…

 

[inocente]

IWantGod;14861967:

Laura Keynes

https://teilharddechardin.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/laura_keynes3.jpg

*“I’m a direct descendant of Darwin, but I have discovered the beauty of the Catholic faith”
*

catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2013/06/17/im-a-direct-descendant-of-darwin-but-i-have-discovered-the-beauty-of-the-catholic-faith/Look at that face, How can some one say that God doesn’t exist?

May I be the first to congratulate you on your overt sexism. Rarely do we see sexism flaunted so openly and unashamedly these days.

Turns out Dr Keynes is a doctor of philosophy. Also worth pointing out that God didn’t design her face or peoples’ liking for a pretty face, that’s genes. Proof that God isn’t a devotee of pretty faces is the Messiah “had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him” (Isaiah 53).

Apropo of nothing, in the article, Dr Keynes says there’s no reason why an understanding of science is incompatible with religious belief. Unless I missed it, she gives no reason to think she’s a creationist.

 

[inocente]

It is interesting you picked a rainbow given that it is an illusion requiring an observer, who sees something or constructs some mechanism that will record something that is not there. Yes, something physical is going on, but the human mind causes the rainbow.

Nope, no illusion. Take a photo, the camera also sees and records it. Nothing to do with our minds. Pure physics.

 

[rossum]

Divine complexity only exists in your imagination!

If God is not complex, and life is complex, then how did a non-complex God create complex life? Are you telling us that complexity can arise from non-complex causes? If you are, then why do you have a problem with complex life arising from non-complex chemistry and evolution?

No one has ever explained the origin of complexity which is a disadvantage for survival.

There are many observed processes which can increase complexity, such as duplication mutations. Similarly there are processes which can decrease complexity. Complexity is not a conserved measure; different processes can increase it, decrease it or leave it unchanged.

The fact that amoeba have outlasted dinosaurs demonstrates that “survival value” is a hopelessly inadequate explanation. Life itself is inexplicable, let alone the existence of rational beings…

Erm… birds are dinosaurs and are still living. Sharks and Coelacanths have been around for longer than dinosaurs as well. Your point here is not clear. Evolution is not affected by the lifespan of the species, it is more focused on the number of grandchildren (i.e. fertile offspring) an individual has.

rossum

 

[inocente]

Similarly, my father could never be anything except a fundamentalist Baptist. Didn’t matter how well you explained something different like Catholicism to him…

Which Catholicism? I get one unified story from Catholic Universities, Catholic scientists, Catholic philosophers and theologians. But little agreement with that is shown by Catholic posters.

Please present to us non-Catholics a unified Catholic understanding of Genesis 1-3 and a unified Catholic understanding of evolution. I mean it’s 160 years since ‘On the Origin’ was published. You guys must have worked out a unified view by now, during that time we’ve invented motor cars, airplanes, computers, the internet and sliced bread. With a post count over 500 on this thread, the world deserves to be told.

I imagine your dad likes sheep to be in a flock, not wandering about the hills confused and bickering.

 

[grannymh]

Which Catholicism? I get one unified story from Catholic Universities, Catholic scientists, Catholic philosophers and theologians. But little agreement with that is shown by Catholic posters.

Please present to us non-Catholics a unified Catholic understanding of Genesis 1-3 and a unified Catholic understanding of evolution. I mean it’s 160 years since ‘On the Origin’ was published. You guys must have worked out a unified view by now, during that time we’ve invented motor cars, airplanes, computers, the internet and sliced bread. With a post count over 500 on this thread, the world deserves to be told.

I imagine your dad likes sheep to be in a flock, not wandering about the hills confused and bickering.

I believe that Judas Iscariot was the first, but not the last, who wanted a different story from Jesus. Thus, one might say that the first Apostles were not unified. Going back further in history, there is Genesis 3: 4.

We need to take John, chapter 14 seriously. My favorite verse there is 18, “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.” Jesus healed the blind. Jesus, Himself was not blind about humanity. Jesus knew that we wandering sheep needed a Catholic Church.

The current lack of Catholic knowledge is everywhere. One example is ignoring the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth. Another example is ignoring the Advocate in John, chapter 14.

In my humble opinion, the modern issue is not an unified Catholic understanding of Genesis 1-3 and a unified Catholic understanding of evolution. It is that Catholics have to understand the individual Catholic doctrines which flow from Genesis 1-3. Catholics need to understand the whole story of the evolution model. I was fortunate to have Rossum as one of my teachers when I landed on CAF.

Regarding the first three great chapters of Genesis. Not every verse is automatically a Catholic doctrine. Genesis 1: 1 is obviously a popular doctrine. After that, some Catholics want to be on their own regarding literal or not literal, etc., etc. That is free speech on a public message board.

To get back to your point about Genesis 1-3, if you will give me the verse or verses you are thinking about, I will do my best in determining what Catholic doctrine may flow from them. Please note that there are some verses beyond my knowledge. I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

 

[Aloysium]

We can grow in our understanding by sharing. This is my perspective:

Rainbows are amazing. I hadn’t considered how they can teach us so much about ourselves.

I recall that in 1972, while in the Canadian Northwest Territories, I participated in the search for a missing Medical Evacuation plane. It was hampered by sporadic cloud cover. We would have been passing over a lake, when a multicoloured circle appeared below, caused by the sun’s reflection off its surface. It looked similar to the following image:

View attachment 24229

In real life it was even more spectacular, the colours radiating out from the centre as we moved - a rainbow seen from above.

Before we proceed, we should distinguish between hallucinations, delusions and illusions. A hallucination is a mental event caused by the mind itself, like a dream while awake. Not to get into the broader topic of mental illness, simply stated we could attribute them to abnormal brain activity. Delusions have to do with ideas. Illusions are things “wrongly” perceived or interpreted.

A rainbow is an illusion in the sense that what we see is not there. The physical basis of a rainbow has to do with white light refracted by water droplets. They are being scattered all over, so it takes an observer for it to exist. The rainbow itself is not there in time and space, but exists in the mind. We extend our senses and abilities to act through mechanical and electronic means, designing and manufacturing cameras, computers, robots and so on. Cameras do not see, we do. The collection of colours on a monitor is interpreted by the mind as a rainbow. What I am describing is similar to what occurs when we gaze out into the night sky, absorbed in the wonder of the stars around us. The reality of the universe can be deduced as being filled with light travelling in every which way. We can’t see this because we have a point of view, a particular relationship with the universe, we see dots of light and can imagine them as being on a dome, or as remnants of massive flaming entities hurtling through space.

I don’t believe animals see rainbows, because their instinctive perceptual make-up determines what is relevant to their existence, and rainbows have nothing to do with getting food, fighting, getting away or procreating.

I would also think that while He would be in every ray of light and every drop of water as the Source of its existence, God, sees rainbows through us, as a part of the beingness that is our worldly existence.

I understand that it may irritate materialists and those who believe the Bible is not historical but merely allegorical, but I could entertain an argument that said that before the Flood, there were no rainbows. We should try to open our minds and go beyond its illusions, to see more truth than what is dictated by our beliefs. While the properties of light and its behaviour within various materials would have been what they are since they came into existence, the existence of rainbows, what they truly are, what makes people stop and park their car to gaze at them, is something more. I recall how I started pulling through a very serious and debilitating illness as Spring broke a few years ago. On one of my walks, I suddenly became aware of the colour green. I don’t think I can explain it any clearer now than I could then to the only person I told, my wife. Green had always been there, but my improving health and deteriorating vision made it stand out, within my experiential reality and as a symbol of my condition. In a way, it was sort of what is meant when people talk about smelling the roses. So, it might be said that Noah realized the rainbow and he did so as a sign of hope and commitment by God to His children, as undeserving as we might be. We have so many blessings, most of which are taken for granted.

At any rate, I’ve made this personal, because everything is personal. We cannot take ourselves out of the equation in the pursuit of knowledge. What is out there, is not outside of the complex unity that is our being, which is of a relational nature. Connecting the knower with the known, the self with the perceived, the actor with that which it is acted upon is the knowing, the perception and the act, one in the reality that is our participation within creation. And, this exists because it is an expression of the Ground of existence, the Triune Godhead - Divine Love.

 

[inocente]

A rainbow is an illusion in the sense that what we see is not there. The physical basis of a rainbow has to do with white light refracted by water droplets. They are being scattered all over, so it takes an observer for it to exist. The rainbow itself is not there in time and space, but exists in the mind.

It is there, honest guv. It’s sunlight refracted and reflected by water droplets. It’s most intense at around 42º which is why you only see the arc of droplets at that angle.

*I don’t believe animals see rainbows, because their instinctive perceptual make-up determines what is relevant to their existence, and rainbows have nothing to do with getting food, fighting, getting away or procreating. *

I think they do, since otherwise their brains would need extra circuits to filter out a rainbow. Dogs see fewer colors than us, but birds see more. But agreed they seem to take it for granted.

I understand that it may irritate materialists and those who believe the Bible is not historical but merely allegorical, but I could entertain an argument that said that before the Flood, there were no rainbows.

Rainbows involve water, white light, reflection and refraction, all of which must have existed since A&E (for instance take away reflected light and people wouldn’t be able to see anything, take away refraction and their eyes couldn’t focus). So I think it would require God to intervene to prevent any weather where rainbows could form.

*I recall how I started pulling through a very serious and debilitating illness as Spring broke a few years ago. On one of my walks, I suddenly became aware of the colour green. I don’t think I can explain it any clearer now than I could then to the only person I told, my wife. Green had always been there, but my improving health and deteriorating vision made it stand out, within my experiential reality and as a symbol of my condition. In a way, it was sort of what is meant when people talk about smelling the roses. So, it might be said that Noah realized the rainbow and he did so as a sign of hope and commitment by God to His children, as undeserving as we might be. We have so many blessings, most of which are taken for granted. *

Hope you’re mended. I know what you mean. A technique I learned for painting is spend a few minutes on your walk working out exactly what color something is. Often the color isn’t what we assume. Moss on trees, for instance, can have specks of bright blue and orange. It all passes us by unless we look consciously. A technique at night is make your computer pad show a solid color (e.g. orange), turn out the room lights and look at the pad for thirty seconds, then switch it off. For ten seconds or so you’ll see the opposite color (in this case light blue) generated right from your brain.

“I think it p****s God off if you walk by the color purple in a field somewhere and don’t notice it. People think pleasing God is all God cares about. But any fool living in the world can see it always trying to please us back.” - Alice Walker, The Color Purple

 

[inocente]

I believe that Judas Iscariot was the first, but not the last, who wanted a different story from Jesus. Thus, one might say that the first Apostles were not unified. Going back further in history, there is Genesis 3: 4.

We need to take John, chapter 14 seriously. My favorite verse there is 18, “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.” Jesus healed the blind. Jesus, Himself was not blind about humanity. Jesus knew that we wandering sheep needed a Catholic Church.

The current lack of Catholic knowledge is everywhere. One example is ignoring the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth. Another example is ignoring the Advocate in John, chapter 14.

In my humble opinion, the modern issue is not an unified Catholic understanding of Genesis 1-3 and a unified Catholic understanding of evolution. It is that Catholics have to understand the individual Catholic doctrines which flow from Genesis 1-3. Catholics need to understand the whole story of the evolution model. I was fortunate to have Rossum as one of my teachers when I landed on CAF.

Regarding the first three great chapters of Genesis. Not every verse is automatically a Catholic doctrine. Genesis 1: 1 is obviously a popular doctrine. After that, some Catholics want to be on their own regarding literal or not literal, etc., etc. That is free speech on a public message board.

To get back to your point about Genesis 1-3, if you will give me the verse or verses you are thinking about, I will do my best in determining what Catholic doctrine may flow from them. Please note that there are some verses beyond my knowledge. I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

You’re differently sharpened.

Just between you and me, Genesis 1:1 might be popular because people read that far, then they get a Whatsapp or a tweet, and they put down the bible and never pick it up again.

I think many people make up their own interpretation of Genesis 1-3 without doing any background reading, as if it was written last week in modern American. But it comes from a completely different culture to ours, with two stories adapted from even earlier polytheistic myths, involves aural and poetic forms, numerology, has influences on and reflects in later scripture, and so on. There’s a lot of bible scholarship on it.

Here’s my favorite take on Genesis 2:7 and dust-to-dust and being thankful. It’s the Last Rites of the Bokononism. Each line is to be spoken by the person administering the rites, and then repeated by the person who is dying.

God made mud.
God got lonesome.
So God said to some of the mud, “Sit up!”
“See all I’ve made,” said God, “the hills, the sea, the sky, the stars.”
And I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
Lucky me, lucky mud.
I, mud, sat up and saw what a nice job God had done.
Nice going, God.
Nobody but you could have done it, God! I certainly couldn’t have.
I feel very unimportant compared to You.
The only way I can feel the least bit important is to think of all the mud that didn’t even get to sit up and look around.
I got so much, and most mud got so little.
Thank you for the honor!
Now mud lies down again and goes to sleep.
What memories for mud to have!
What interesting other kinds of sitting-up mud I met!
I loved everything I saw!
Good night.
I will go to heaven now.

(by Kurt Vonnegut, from Cat’s Cradle)

 

[grannymh]

You’re differently sharpened.

Just between you and me, Genesis 1:1 might be popular because people read that far, then they get a Whatsapp or a tweet, and they put down the bible and never pick it up again.

I think many people make up their own interpretation of Genesis 1-3 without doing any background reading, as if it was written last week in modern American.

Most people.

But it comes from a completely different culture to ours, with two stories adapted from even earlier polytheistic myths, involves aural and poetic forms, numerology, has influences on and reflects in later scripture, and so on. There’s a lot of bible scholarship on it.

I am only interested in the first three chapters of Genesis.

This requires reading Genesis from the intentions of the author or redactor. Basically, his culture and our culture are the same. This is because the author’s surroundings included real humans and our world includes real humans.

Here’s my favorite take on Genesis 2:7 and dust-to-dust and being thankful. It’s the Last Rites of the Bokononism. Each line is to be spoken by the person administering the rites, and then repeated by the person who is dying.
God made mud.
God got lonesome.
So God said to some of the mud, “Sit up!”
“See all I’ve made,” said God, “the hills, the sea, the sky, the stars.”
And I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
Lucky me, lucky mud.
I, mud, sat up and saw what a nice job God had done.
Nice going, God.
Nobody but you could have done it, God! I certainly couldn’t have.
I feel very unimportant compared to You.
The only way I can feel the least bit important is to think of all the mud that didn’t even get to sit up and look around.
I got so much, and most mud got so little.
Thank you for the honor!
Now mud lies down again and goes to sleep.
What memories for mud to have!
What interesting other kinds of sitting-up mud I met!
I loved everything I saw!
Good night.
I will go to heaven now.

(by Kurt Vonnegut, from Cat’s Cradle)

Thank you sincerely for this from Cat’s Cradle. It has a personal meaning .

 

[grannymh]

If God is not complex, and life is complex, then how did a non-complex God create complex life?

Simple. When a person accepts God as a Supernatural Being.

 

[tonyrey]

Divine complexity only exists in your imagination!

It doesn’t make sense to believe the Creator is complex because complexity implies a multiplicity of causes whereas the Big Bang was a singularity. Moreover the First Cause is not physical or located in time and space. Buddhists surely believe in the primacy of the spirit because Nirvana is in a different realm from the material world and the ultimate goal of personal existence…

No one has ever explained the origin of complexity which is a disadvantage for survival.

There are many observed processes which can increase complexity, such as duplication mutations. Similarly there are processes which can decrease complexity. Complexity is not a conserved measure; different processes can increase it, decrease it or leave it unchanged.

All these processes presuppose the existence of complexity. It remains true that no one has ever explained the origin of complexity - which was, is and always will be a disadvantage for survival whereas (relative) simplicity has proved to be less prone to malfunction.

The fact that amoeba have outlasted dinosaurs demonstrates that “survival value” is a hopelessly inadequate explanation. Life itself is inexplicable, let alone the existence of rational beings…

Erm… birds are dinosaurs and are still living. Sharks and Coelacanths have been around for longer than dinosaurs as well. Your point here is not clear. Evolution is not affected by the lifespan of the species, it is more focused on the number of grandchildren (i.e. fertile offspring) an individual has.

The implied comparison with amoeba is absurd. All multicellular organisms are more liable to malfunction due to the sheer number of their components.

 

[grannymh]

Please consider…

We are close to the end of the current CAF.

Thank you for the fascinating discussions.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

No…the large number is how YOU think it works. Akin to the risible 747 in a junkyard example.

747s aren’t as complex as our bodies. We can make a 747, but we can only make a very poor robotic version of our bodies. After all, our bodies are only a bunch of levers connected together with motors, we have the blueprint. We should be able to replicate our body movements mechanically, with all our intelligence and computer wizardry.

If we stick with 52 cards for a moment, to get the ace, you would need on average, 26 attempts to draw it. Then you keep it

Nature is cruel, the one with the best eye in the pack could die of a tumour or virus, it could be infertile or just be on the lunch menu before it gets the chance to reproduce.

I hope you’d be able to work out that it would only take 52 x 26 draws to get a perfect set of cards, which is 1352. If you have an hour spare, then try it. And if you want to use 1800, then the number becomes 1800 x 900 which is 1.62 million.

If there are cumulative odds, you multiply all the numbers together, you do not add them as in your example. You are using the example of cards that have already been made, and the need for an intelligent person being able to shuffle and select the cards.

God has set it up quite neatly. Well, He is omnipotent, so it was a walk in the park really.

You are right, God created, which means there is a need to search for God

 

[ericc]

Given the principles of evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc, do you think belief in the supernatural will die out or become a minority worldview?

Given the inadequacy of the principles of evolution, natural selection, blah blah blah to explain the supernatural or explain how/why universe/life exist, it is unlikely belief in the supernatural to die out.

However, immoral lifestyles and coupled with the principle of survival of the fittest may or may not lead to a reduction in the belief of the supernatural. Animals need no religion nor morality. So it depends on whether mankind stand above animals or we stoop to their level.