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

[edwest2]

Back to the topic, science does not have the complete answer. Evolution cannot be proven one way or the other. However, what is certain is that God does intervene and some see it.

Romans 1:20

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

New Living Translation
For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

English Standard Version
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Berean Study Bible
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.

But this will continue - as always.

Ed

 

[reggieM]

Good Morning Reggie,

I think that what you said here is one of the most significant observations you are making.

So in your experience, you see evolutionary theory as a threat to belief? Or did I get that wrong? This is not a question to challenge you, but only to help readers understand your viewpoint.

Blessings

Good morning, OneSheep.
Yes, I think evolutionary theory is a very dangerous threat to Christian belief.
I think if you look back at the exchange I had with Bradski he said the only way he could reconcile evolution if he was a Christian is if he was a Deist and that also requires a denial of the de fide doctrine of Original Sin.
Notice, I quoted from a Catholic author defending evolution by saying that “God does not intervene in nature”. That’s what an embrace of evolution will cause a person to do - basically twist the faith.
Others try to twist evolutionary theory into something that is Catholic-friendly, claiming that evolution does not claim to show the origin of human beings, but only the origin of the human body.

 

[edwest2]

Apparently, even Biology textbooks do not just stick to science.

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)

Ed

 

[reggieM]

I prefer not to squirm at all. I can’t see any way that evolution could happen without any guidance from God.

Most evolutionists state that all life on earth developed through a blind, mindless, purposeless, unguided process. From the simplest bacteria to the sophistication of human persons, all of that diversity and complexity, came entirely from random mutations and random environmental effects, and supposedly only so that organisms could survive and reproduce.

 

[reggieM]

Apparently, even Biology textbooks do not just stick to science.

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)

Ed

This is very important for people to look at and understand.
Quotes from biology textbooks, explaining evolution.
Somebody asked me “do you think [evolutionists] are just lying”?
Well, lying or not - we can see the atheistic propaganda they’re putting into their own scientific explanations.

Dawkins calls evolution “The Blind Watchmaker”. That means evolution does what God was said to do before - except that evolution created the diversity of life through a blind, unintelligent process.

In my classes, however, I still characterize evolution and selection as processes lacking mind, purpose, or supervision. Why? Because, as far as we can see, that’s the truth. Evolution and selection operate precisely as you’d expect them to if they were not designed by, or steered by, a deity—especially one who is omnipotent and benevolent.
Jerry Coyne - Why Evolution is True

I guess the good Catholics here could agree with all of that and claim, “Yes, human life emerged with no divine plan through evolution”.

But you don’t see that as a radical threat to the Catholic Faith?

 

[reggieM]

Here’s Jerry Coyne again from his blog “Why Evolution is True”:

Now you can always say, along with many liberal theologians, that god just created the world, knowing that life would eventually arise and evolve largely by natural selection. If you add the caveat (viz. Kenneth Miller and Simon Conway Morris), that god made sure that evolution coughed up a complex and intelligent primate that would apprehend and worship him, then you have modern theistic evolution. But even liberal theologians have no explanation why God would use such a wasteful and tortuous process to produce humans. (Curiously, while they claim absolute knowledge that god used evolution to produce humans, these theologians bail when asked why he did it that way).

In the end, the absence of evidence for a godly hand in evolution is evidence of godly absence, for evolution and selection show precisely the characteristics they would have if they were purely material, mindless, and purposeless processes. There is no sign of orthogenesis, directed evolution, or a one-way march to Homo sapiens. There is no more evidence that god directed evolution than there is that god keeps the engine working in your car—and yet nobody keeps an open mind about the possibility that god is pushing their pistons.

Do you agree?

 

[Operations66]

No, belief in the supernatural will not die out because:

1. the supernatural is true, and what is true always reveals itself in one way or another; and
2. if humanity slips too far toward atheism, God will intervene to balance the scales.

 

[OneSheep]

Good morning, OneSheep.
Yes, I think evolutionary theory is a very dangerous threat to Christian belief.
I think if you look back at the exchange I had with Bradski he said the only way he could reconcile evolution if he was a Christian is if he was a Deist and that also requires a denial of the de fide doctrine of Original Sin.
Notice, I quoted from a Catholic author defending evolution by saying that “God does not intervene in nature”. That’s what an embrace of evolution will cause a person to do - basically twist the faith.
Others try to twist evolutionary theory into something that is Catholic-friendly, claiming that evolution does not claim to show the origin of human beings, but only the origin of the human body.

I see. You read an atheist’s support for evolution as a reason to deny faith in a Living God, a Spirit present in all that is, (correct me if I’m wrong), and see this as causative: that the theory of evolution itself (if believed) supplants faith. Am I jumping to conclusions by guessing that you have seen this many times over? So many times that you are certain that the theory itself plays a major role in people leaving the Church?

Then, you see your calling is to negate the theory itself, if I am accurate in observing, or you are doing His will in suggesting to Catholics who find no contradiction between faith and evolution that they are missing something important, not the least of which is that the theory supplants faith, which is your genuine experience.

 

[Vonsalza]

Friendly to the concept that there was no Adam and Eve and no Original Sin?

No, friendly to the concept of life evolving.

I haven’t said anything about Genesis in this discussion. The Catechism teaches that Original Sin is a de fide doctrine:

I agree. Evolution does not address original sin. Different topics, as it appears to me.

Do you accept that evolution explains the origin of the immortal soul in humans?

Nope.

Or do you think the human soul is not the source of consciousness and rationality?

The phrasing here is tricky, so I’ll say that I think the soul is the source of those things.

I’m not sure what you mean by “keep them divorced”. Either evolution explains the origin of human life or not.

You’re right. So FULL STOP right here. What is does not explain is anything metaphysical. As such, Original Sin is a categorically different question.

The consensus of all of the literature from evolutionary biology is that evolution explains the origin of human beings - not just the human body, but the entire “thing” that is a human.

The current vogue in the sciences is the denial of the reality of the metaphysical (a la “materialism”), As such, I think your consensus is not particularly correct (in that there is no “thing” for humans beyond the body for scientific evolutionists) and that it also serves the unfortunate role of being descriptive of your paradigm on the subject. As such, your objection is less than well founded, in my personal view.

They don’t “own” the idea, Reggie.

What do you think is miraculous in the view of atheistic evolution?

There’s no good reason that it has to be “atheistic”, I’m afraid. The bible gives us that “God created the heavens and the earth”. That “He did so instantly, without process” is a personal interpretation of the text that I don’t share.

 

[OneSheep]

Apparently, even Biology textbooks do not just stick to science.

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

Ed, this proves that textbooks are not immune to making statements that do not reflect modern science. Or it could be that the book is too old. Or maybe I am applying too much philosophical analysis to an off-the-cuff statement that happened to land in a textbook.

Take, for example, domestic dogs. Dogs became more capable of living among humans because it was to their advantage to have a reliable food source. While it is true that the offspring of dogs that had increasingly tolerant and less aggressive behaviors toward humans inherited those traits, the dogs themselves had to want the food and desire to thrive and survive in order to take advantage of the selected mutations.

Therefore, the evolution of domestic dogs was hardly without plan or purpose, the purpose was to survive and thrive.

• Open to counterpoint…

 

[SuperLuigi]

Many people are beginning to realise that science is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of the most valuable aspects of life: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love. Persons are far more precious and significant than mindless particles which don’t know what they’re doing and cannot control themselves…

We see this trend already in the West. If there’s a vacuum something else will fill it. And things like post-modern & feminism have structures that are just like religion.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Well, if we consider the future demographics of Europe that are being projected, then the answer to your question is, “No, atheism will die out, or at least become a minority point of view.” This is because a person’s strength is drawn from, and directly correlates with, their faith in God. Western society has more and more become Godless, has deliberately abandoned God, and as a result is the weakest it’s been in millennia. So as the Christian population shrinks and the Muslim population grows, the answer to your question is plain to see. And I should add that I certainly don’t believe evolution itself has anything whatsoever to do with it, but the fact remains: it’s the most religious societies that are strongest.

:clapping:

As Dave Cullen notes “An absolutist will always defeat a relativist”.

 

[reggieM]

The current vogue in the sciences is the denial of the reality of the metaphysical (a la “materialism”), As such, I think your consensus is not particularly correct (in that there is no “thing” for humans beyond the body for scientific evolutionists) and that it also serves the unfortunate role of being descriptive of your paradigm on the subject. As such, your objection is less than well founded, in my personal view.

I’m sorry Von - I did not follow the above or your previous statements. Do you think the consensus view among evolutionary biologists is that evolution explains the origin of the entire human being? Or that the consensus view is that evolution only explains part of the human being (the body or form)?

They don’t “own” the idea, Reggie.

If the point is that we all have to agree with them because they are the evolutionary biologists, then it seems they own the idea.
But if we’re saying, “we can have our own Catholic view of evolution that virtually no scientists accept” - I’m ok with that.
All it is saying is “we believe virtually all of the evolutionary biologists are wrong”.
That’s the same thing creationists say (I argue that Catholics must be creationists, but that’s a different topic).
So, at least mainstream evolutionary claims are rejected on that point - and therefore we would agree.

 

[Vonsalza]

I’m sorry Von - I did not follow the above or your previous statements. Do you think the consensus view among evolutionary biologists is that evolution explains the origin of the entire human being? Or that the consensus view is that evolution only explains part of the human being (the body or form)?

Merely the body. But for them, that’s all there likely is as they’re materialists. As such, we have a teleological difference. I think there’s a soul there that evolution obviously does not provide by itself. It’s the thing that provides for human exceptionalism.

If the point is that we all have to agree with them because they are the evolutionary biologists, then it seems they own the idea.
But if we’re saying, “we can have our own Catholic view of evolution that virtually no scientists accept” - I’m ok with that.

For me, it provides the “how” of human existence. Not the “why”. Related to the above, they aren’t concerned with the “why” because secularist scientists don’t really think there is one, other than to keep on reproducing (but often they also advocate for homosexuality and transgenderism, which is a confusing stance intended for another thread).

God called me forth from the dirt? Cool.
He did it via evolutionary process? Cool. God still called me forth from the dirt.

 

[reggieM]

Merely the body.

Ok, I have never seen a evolutionary biology paper ever stating that evolutionary science only explains the development of the human body. Of the dozens I’ve read and books on evolution also - they all state that evolution explains the emergence of human beings, in their entirety.
If you have a scientific paper that supports your view - keep in mind, I believe you’re saying it is the “consensus” (most widely held) belief in the evolutionary science community (that evolution only affects the body and not the entire human being) – I would like to see that. I mean, even one paper.

Honestly, I don’t think it is there for reasons you gave. So perhaps we’re misunderstanding each other.

For me, it provides the “how” of human existence. Not the “why”. Related to the above, they aren’t concerned with the “why” because secularist scientists don’t really think there is one, other than to keep on reproducing (but often they also advocate for homosexuality and transgenderism, which is a confusing stance intended for another thread).

Yes, exactly. That’s what evolution is. Everything is driven only by survival and reproduction. All of the most well-known evolutionists in the world today (even those that reject neo-Darwinism) are secularist-atheist scientists.

 

[grannymh]

According to the Science of Human Evolution, our species can be traced back to the Homo/Pan Split aka a speciation event. Some folks call this speciation event the last common ancestor shared by the extant Homo line.
Here is an interesting link.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_07

The Science of Human Evolution, like the Science of Busy Beavers, is based on large random breeding populations evolving from previous large random breading populations over time. Large, being in the hundreds and thousands, is distinctly different from an originating human population of two, Adam and his spouse Eve. It is the evolution population issue which contradicts duly declared Catholic Doctrines surrounding the action of Original Sin.

An additional idea is that Original Sin, because it involves a Divine Creator, can be considered part of the supernatural world.

 

[tonyrey]

We see this trend already in the West. If there’s a vacuum something else will fill it. And things like post-modern & feminism have structures that are just like religion.

Indeed. In many people’s lives the cult of celebrities has replaced prayer to - and admiration for - saints although very often the “stars” are not good role models. Fame and wealth are not conducive to humility and sanctity.

 

[tonyrey]

Ok, I have never seen a evolutionary biology paper ever stating that evolutionary science only explains the development of the human body. Of the dozens I’ve read and books on evolution also - they all state that evolution explains the emergence of human beings, in their entirety.
If you have a scientific paper that supports your view - keep in mind, I believe you’re saying it is the “consensus” (most widely held) belief in the evolutionary science community (that evolution only affects the body and not the entire human being) – I would like to see that. I mean, even one paper.

Honestly, I don’t think it is there for reasons you gave. So perhaps we’re misunderstanding each other.

Yes, exactly. That’s what evolution is. Everything is driven only by survival and reproduction. All of the most well-known evolutionists in the world today (even those that reject neo-Darwinism) are secularist-atheist scientists.

It is obviously an occupational hazard to regard biological evolution as a comprehensive explanation of the human race regardless of its self-destructive implications. In their daily lives scientists don’t treat other people as chance products of blind evolution whose behaviour is determined entirely by physical causes. They inhabit two incompatible worlds because one violates the principle of conservation of energy and the other implies the existence of will-power. Belief in the supernatural will never die out or become a minority world view for the simple reason it is the only rational foundation for moral principles and human rights. Otherwise we would revert to the law of the jungle and destroy not only ourselves but all life on this planet.

 

[Bradski]

Evolution seems pretty simple. Faster runners always win. So, all runners are the fastest, otherwise they would not have survived.

It’s a touch more complex than that, but yeah, that’s the principle. If you have even a slight advantage over the guy next to you (and I don’t mean in the supermarket queue), then you survive longer than he will to pass on whatever advantage to your offspring.

Rinse and repeat.

 

[Samwise21]

Suggested reading: R.C. Sproul’s Not A Chance