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

[reggieM]

En toto, you seem to be demanding a standard that I don’t think needs to be met.

And again, as they are blind to metaphysical concepts in this field of study, they are not asserting that it explains the soul. How could they? They’re not particularly convinced it exists.

My point is that evolutionists claim to know that human beings emerged by a material process alone.
However, what would be the difference between a human being and a non-human supposed ancestor of a human being?
I ask especially if, as some would say, God infused a soul into a non-human.

The difference would be the immortal soul. So, evolution cannot determine the difference between human and non-human. Thus, as Catholics, we have to reject the theory (and propose our own modified version).

The addition of a soul to a non-human ancestor is not a minor consideration.
The soul has observable effects - rationality, consciousness.

Evolution claims that these observable aspects of human life, which we call coming from the soul, as simply physical components that evolved.

That is why we cannot accept evolutionary theory in its most mainstream formula today.

I think it is relevant that I ask for scientific papers because those papers assert that the entire human being is explained by evolution alone.

But we would say that is false.

 

[reggieM]

While material process are involved in the structure and physiology of the physical brain, in animals we find the emergence of instincts: sensory experiences of pleasure and pain, perceptual gestalts that signify predator or prey, emotional reactions of fear and anger, organized behavioural reactions of fight and flight, and so on.
There is no nonreductionistic explanation for these mental phenomena other than that they are equally a part of the universe as are molecules and supernovae.

At a very basic level, if the claim is that non-living chemicals combined to form life, and then life evolved into the diversity we see today - what is not explained is why chemicals “struggle to survive”. Because upon death, living forms merely return to chemicals. So, it’s not only the mental phenomena and instincts that are irreducible, it is the actual supposed drivers of evolution (desire to survive and reproduce) that cannot be reduced to the molecular level.

I would conclude that one should be a pantheist when considering how this process is driven to come up with what is happening right here where one might conclude that at the very least the universe is trying to understand itself through us.

While today’s science provides some degree of understanding, it is superficial and circumstantial, lacking in any depth as to who and what we are, and generally gets it wrong both ontologically and historically in my not so humble, I suppose, opinion.
The truth is the truth; it will win out.

Agreed.

 

[tonyrey]

Ken Miller believes that God had nothing to do with the evolutionary process and did not guide it to any particular result. The emergence of human beings, according to Miller, was a surprise to God.

So, we are not intentionally created through the will of God and by his Love. That is consistent with atheism and not with Catholicism.

Miller’s god is lacking in knowledge of the future as well as lacking in the power to create - so his god is powerless against the processes of nature.

Incontestable! His compromise with atheism is compatible with deism but certainly not with Christian theism which maintains that God is a loving Father whose power is revealed in the beauty of the lilies which far exceeds Solomon’s man-made glory.

 

[reggieM]

Incontestable! His compromise with atheism is compatible with deism but certainly not with Christian theism which maintains that God is a loving Father whose power is revealed in the beauty of the lilies which far exceeds Solomon’s man-made glory.

Yes, exactly!
I think that example shows the real danger of the materialist-evolutionary ideology. Many Catholics follow the same path as Ken Miller, and they remove God from having any role at all in the world. Yes, it’s a deist viewpoint (Bradski thinks that’s the only view that can reconcile Christianity and evolution) which eventually has to deny every miracle and it also has to claim that human beings are entirely reducible to physical matter alone. Humans are only different from animals by some mutations and a gradual development due to different survival needs in that view. But human consciousness, moral convictions, spiritual awareness and rationality are infinitely greater than what any animal possesses - and those features cannot be reduced to physical changes. They are given by God as He infuses an immortal soul into each human being at their conception.
So, mainstream evolutionary theory can offer some partial understanding, but it is not a settled theory even in scientific terms, and certainly cannot support its grand claims on the supposed emergence of all life forms on earth.

I’ll add - it should be obvious, but human beings are non-reducible to the desire for survival and reproductive success alone. But that’s all evolution can offer.

 

[Vonsalza]

However, what would be the difference between a human being and a non-human supposed ancestor of a human being?

The soul is indeed the difference, as I see it. Pre-human ancestors wouldn’t have had one.

Thus, as Catholics, we have to reject the theory (and propose our own modified version).

The language would be tricky as to whether it was a modification/corollary/addendum by adding an explanation for the soul, but fair enough.

I’m still happy to call it “evolution” as living things still evolved under that theory.

Evolution claims that these observable aspects of human life, which we call coming from the soul, as simply physical components that evolved.

I’m not sure the theory is that broad, even as it could be used to segue into discussions about the mystery of consciousness.

Evolution doesn’t explain violins very well, although I’m sure there are many atheists that share my appreciation for that instrument when played well. I’m not sure it’s a good “Theory of Everything”. It’s probably more like “The Theory Why There Aren’t Fossils of People Alongside Dinosaurs”.

 

[reggieM]

The language would be tricky as to whether it was a modification/corollary/addendum by adding an explanation for the soul, but fair enough.

Ok, that’s a good agreement. A new or modified theory is required, however …

I’m still happy to call it “evolution” as living things still evolved under that theory.

That’s fine - except you don’t have the new or modified theory. There’s nothing in science that supports your view. So, unless you’re going to become a biologist or researcher or scientific theorist – or unless you can find someone else to do it, there is no “Vonsalza Theory” that you would call “evolution”. So, I would say, to use the term “evolution” but actually mean “The Vonsalza Theory” is misleading. The term “evolution” means in general terms “the mainstream theory of evolution”’ and we’ve already agreed that theory is wrong.

I’m not sure the theory is that broad, even as it could be used to segue into discussions about the mystery of consciousness.

Evolution doesn’t explain violins very well, although I’m sure there are many atheists that share my appreciation for that instrument when played well. I’m not sure it’s a good “Theory of Everything”. It’s probably more like “The Theory Why There Aren’t Fossils of People Alongside Dinosaurs”.

It’s not a theory of everything (physics is claiming that) but the theory of biological life. So, the theory is that broad. It explains all biological life - from the very first cell to human beings. Dawkins, Coyne, Lewontin, Carroll, Myers, Moran - any and all of the leading evolutionary biologists state this. It does, indeed attempt to explain violins. Every human activity and thought is reducible to evolution according to that view.

You seem to be thinking that evolution is merely a counter-point to evangelical fundamentalism, but that’s not the case.

 

[inocente]

So, evolution is a denial of the dogmatic Catholic teaching – that God directly infuses (creates) an immortal soul (rationality, memory, intelligence, will, imagination) into each human at conception.

Nope, evolution doesn’t deny any of that.

Catholic Answers doesn’t agree with you either - catholic.com/tract/adam-eve-and-evolution

Unfortunately, some Catholics are more willing to defend evolution and belief in a non-interventionist god than they are to accept the teachings that came to us from the true God.

The Catholic University of America says it was “specifically founded by the Catholic bishops of the United States, with a charter from then Pope Leo XIII, to be the national university of the Catholic Church in America”.

It teaches evolution. Its School of Theology and Religious Studies lists lots of resources on evolution, all from secular sources. Presumably the School lists them so that its students will study them. Other Catholics probably study them also. - trs.cua.edu/Science-for-Seminaries/biology-evolution.cfm

 

[inocente]

Nope, evolution doesn’t deny any of that.

Catholic Answers doesn’t agree with you either - catholic.com/tract/adam-eve-and-evolution

The Catholic University of America says it was “specifically founded by the Catholic bishops of the United States, with a charter from then Pope Leo XIII, to be the national university of the Catholic Church in America”.

It teaches evolution. Its School of Theology and Religious Studies lists lots of resources on evolution, all straight from secular sources. Presumably the School lists them so that its students will study them. Other Catholics probably study them also. - trs.cua.edu/Science-for-Seminaries/biology-evolution.cfm

 

[edwest2]

Yes, exactly!
I think that example shows the real danger of the materialist-evolutionary ideology. Many Catholics follow the same path as Ken Miller, and they remove God from having any role at all in the world. Yes, it’s a deist viewpoint (Bradski thinks that’s the only view that can reconcile Christianity and evolution) which eventually has to deny every miracle and it also has to claim that human beings are entirely reducible to physical matter alone. Humans are only different from animals by some mutations and a gradual development due to different survival needs in that view. But human consciousness, moral convictions, spiritual awareness and rationality are infinitely greater than what any animal possesses - and those features cannot be reduced to physical changes. They are given by God as He infuses an immortal soul into each human being at their conception.
So, mainstream evolutionary theory can offer some partial understanding, but it is not a settled theory even in scientific terms, and certainly cannot support its grand claims on the supposed emergence of all life forms on earth.

I’ll add - it should be obvious, but human beings are non-reducible to the desire for survival and reproductive success alone. But that’s all evolution can offer.

Regarding your last sentence, it reduces human beings to biological machines who only do what they need to do to function, survive, reproduce, or not, and die. The end. A totally speculative aspect is “evolutionary biology.” It tells us that certain forms of behavior place alleged human ancestors in a certain mental development category, but these otherwise non-goal oriented machines and their brains, somehow upgrade on their own.

Chimps do fine in the wild. We should have remained where they are now, according to this line of thinking. Simply assuming we didn’t because we didn’t is nonsensical. Unless, of course, human beings are special in some way. Which can’t be right Right?

Ed

 

[rossum]

I have read enough on Google to know that the evolution of the eye lacks detail.

Eyes, not “eye”. And we have more detail on the evolution of the various eyes than on the creation of eyes. Religious texts do not generally contain a great deal of scientific detail.

Lets go back in time to when there were no eyes, brains, nervous systems, limbs. So how did all these things evolve together? We know the brain is able to learn, but go back a few billion years before brains evolved, and lets hear a complete story

Eyes came first. For example, Euglena is a single-celled Eukaryote, with no brain, no nervous system and an eye-spot. It has a flagellum; does that count as a “limb”? It can detect light and orient itself accordingly.

Next came the nervous system. For example, Jellyfish have eyes and a nervous system, but no brain. They have a body and muscles, controlled by their nervous system, so you can put ‘limbs’ in there too.

That gets us roughly to a very primitive light-sensitive bilateran worm with a nervous system to control its body.

For a brain, you need to look at something like a Lancelet/Amphioxus which adds a very primitive brain to eyes, a nervous system and muscles.

That is what I mean by evolution supplying more detail than scripture. The Bible is a religious text, not a biology textbook.

rossum

 

[rossum]

You think Collins and Miller believe that God was involved in the evolutionary process?

I suspect that they believe God created the evolutionary process. For a Christian, all that exists was created by God. Evolution exists, so God created it.

rossum

 

[Vonsalza]

That’s fine - except you don’t have the new or modified theory. There’s nothing in science that supports your view.

Genuinely unsurprising, as the soul isn’t a scientific concept.

It’s not a theory of everything (physics is claiming that) but the theory of biological life.

Quite right. Also excluded is it being a theory of “spiritual life”. Your body and your “self” are obviously two different things, as every corpse reminds us.

 

[Vonsalza]

I suspect that they believe God created the evolutionary process. For a Christian, all that exists was created by God. Evolution exists, so God created it.

rossum

I can dance to that.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, exactly!
I think that example shows the real danger of the materialist-evolutionary ideology. Many Catholics follow the same path as Ken Miller, and they remove God from having any role at all in the world. Yes, it’s a deist viewpoint (Bradski thinks that’s the only view that can reconcile Christianity and evolution) which eventually has to deny every miracle and it also has to claim that human beings are entirely reducible to physical matter alone. Humans are only different from animals by some mutations and a gradual development due to different survival needs in that view. But human consciousness, moral convictions, spiritual awareness and rationality are infinitely greater than what any animal possesses - and those features cannot be reduced to physical changes. They are given by God as He infuses an immortal soul into each human being at their conception.
So, mainstream evolutionary theory can offer some partial understanding, but it is not a settled theory even in scientific terms, and certainly cannot support its grand claims on the supposed emergence of all life forms on earth.

I’ll add - it should be obvious, but human beings are non-reducible to the desire for survival and reproductive success alone. But that’s all evolution can offer.

Without any reason why development had to occur! The fatal flaw in NeoDarwinism is its failure to explain the increase in complexity because simplicity is a valuable asset for survival because there is less to go wrong. That is why amoeba have outlasted multicellular organisms like dinosaurs.

“Necessity” is a myth and “Chance” is a hopelessly inadequate explanation. In daily life no reasonable person makes an important decision by throwing dice! To attribute the existence of rational beings to fortuitous combinations of mindless molecules and random genetic mutations is the apex of absurdity.

The achievements of science far surpass the effects of unplanned coincidences precisely because they are based on knowledge of natural laws and understanding of a predictable universe whereas chaos leads to confusion and destruction at the expense of insight and creativity. All the evidence points to Design…

 

[Bradski]

Ok, true. So, if the theory said, “the fastest runners are the ones that survive” - it would be wrong. So instead it would have to say, “The runners best suited to survival are the ones that survive”. But the only way we know that is by looking at today’s survivors and saying “those were the most fit, best suited to survive”. That’s the tautology…

The fastest runners at the Olympics 100 metre final will win a gold medal. You seem to think that using the fact that someone has a gold medal and was therefore the fastest is a tautology.

And it really does appear that you are not rejecting evolution on the science (the science is in) but on the fact that it appears to contradict your beliefs: ‘This what I believe, therefore the theory must be wrong’.

You have a closed mind on the subject.

 

[edwest2]

Without any reason why development had to occur! The fatal flaw in NeoDarwinism is its failure to explain the increase in complexity because simplicity is a valuable asset for survival because there is less to go wrong. That is why amoeba have outlasted multicellular organisms like dinosaurs.

“Necessity” is a myth and “Chance” is a hopelessly inadequate explanation. In daily life no reasonable person makes an important decision by throwing dice! To attribute the existence of rational beings to fortuitous combinations of mindless molecules and random genetic mutations is the apex of absurdity.

The achievements of science far surpass the effects of unplanned coincidences precisely because they are based on knowledge of natural laws and understanding of a predictable universe whereas chaos leads to confusion and destruction at the expense of insight and creativity. All the evidence points to Design…

I agree. All the chemical combinations + time does not make us. Design makes sense.

Ed

 

[Eric_Hyom]

The fastest runners at the Olympics 100 metre final will win a gold medal. You seem to think that using the fact that someone has a gold medal and was therefore the fastest is a tautology.

And it really does appear that you are not rejecting evolution on the science (the science is in) but on the fact that it appears to contradict your beliefs: ‘This what I believe, therefore the theory must be wrong’.

Forgive me if I have missed it, but I don’t recall seeing any science in your posts?

You have a closed mind on the subject.

No, we are looking for the science that explains in detail how the ToE might have happened. Life is too complex, it needs a designer.

 

[Bradski]

No, we are looking for the science that explains in detail how the ToE might have happened. Life is too complex, it needs a designer.

Why are you looking for the science if you have already decided it doesn’t give the answer?

If I want to bang my head against a brick wall, I’ve got one handy in tbe garden.

 

[rossum]

Life is too complex, it needs a designer.

How complex is your designer? If your designer is as complex as life, or more complex, then you also need a designer-designer.

Your hypothesis might by OK is your designer is less complex than life.

So, how complex is your proposed designer?

rossum

 

[reggieM]

Without any reason why development had to occur! The fatal flaw in NeoDarwinism is its failure to explain the increase in complexity because simplicity is a valuable asset for survival because there is less to go wrong. That is why amoeba have outlasted multicellular organisms like dinosaurs.

That is the fatal flaw. Even the change from a single celled organism to multicellular is more costly and difficult to sustain. Plus, where is this supposed competition for resources among bacteria or prokaryotes? They couldn’t find enough food in the ocean? There was never any need for evolution to occur for them. But when we think about the incredible complexity of even the simplest insects (even a single cell has overwhelming commplexity), evolution doesn’t make sense. Why would organisms need the virtually infinite variety of features?

I think about an insect like the Mayfly. It’s average lifespan is only 24 hours. Where is this great desire to survive? Evolution couldn’t create a Mayfly that lives for a week? Plus, we can see how delicate that insect is (3,000 species were needed because of competition?) with beautifully intricate wings. How did the Mayfly learn how to fly and use those wings? There’s only one day to do it all. The mayfly nymph lives in the water – why not just stay there? What good did flying do? It’s the same with a butterfly that lives less than a year. Such a beautiful creature – and what about metamorphosis from caterpillar to butterfly? The larvae actually self-destructs and becomes like an organic mush before the butterfly starts to form. There’s no explanation for all of that. The sophistication and complexity involved does not aid survival - in fact, as you pointed out, utter simplicity would be the easiest and best result for a blind, unintelligent process to land upon.

“Necessity” is a myth and “Chance” is a hopelessly inadequate explanation. In daily life no reasonable person makes an important decision by throwing dice! To attribute the existence of rational beings to fortuitous combinations of mindless molecules and random genetic mutations is the apex of absurdity.

The achievements of science far surpass the effects of unplanned coincidences precisely because they are based on knowledge of natural laws and understanding of a predictable universe whereas chaos leads to confusion and destruction at the expense of insight and creativity. All the evidence points to Design…

Exactly. We use the power of science to engineer results. Even with all of that, we cannot create life - which supposedly just emerged from totally random combinations of chemicals. How hard should it be to do it in a lab? We have the chemicals. Just mix them. Take a cell apart into its components, then in a lab it should be easy to create life again. But it never works that way. Only God can create life.