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

[grannymh]

Because time is running out …
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1060091

There is plenty of evidence that the “supernatural” is not primary and thus it becomes less and less.

For example. All this talk about evolution – what is really needed is to define the exact point where the Science of Human Evolution clashes with a major supernatural truth within the Catholic Church. It seems to me, and I certainly could be wrong, that the difference between the supernatural and the natural is not a primary exploration. That is evidence.

 

[Bradski]

How did the Mayfly learn how to fly and use those wings? There’s only one day to do it all.

Dear me, Reg. I’ve seen some incredible comments re evolution over the years. That one gets you into the top ten.

 

[reggieM]

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.

That analogy has a lot of problems, as I’m sure you know.
I could take the time and give a counter-point but it seems you’d prefer to judge my intentions rather than the content of the reply.

 

[reggieM]

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

Design begins in the mind - with an idea.
You can’t measure the complexity of an idea in the mind, can you?

 

[reggieM]

You have a closed mind on the subject.

I’ll offer this:
I am resistant to lies and manipulation. I will fight against that when I see it, and I’ve seen a lot of it from defenders of evolution.
So, I take a suspicious attitude. I question the claims and then observe the response I get in return.
Evolution has won through methods of intimidation, ridicule, arrogance, group-think and eventually isolation and persecution of those who question it.
Atheists adhere to evolutionary theory with an intensity and conviction that tells me something. Why is it so important to them? Why the hostility to those who question it?

I observe post #83 in this thread. That listing has been presented here on CAF several times before. In almost every case I’ve seen that, it is a discussion-stopper. Nobody has anything to say about it.

But when I look at that, I see what I just mentioned: Lies and manipulation right in the biology textbooks. Propaganda.

Interestingly, some atheists will complain: “Those are older editions! The new ones don’t contain those quotes!”

But see? That’s the manipulation I’m talking about. Parents and students complained about how the theory of evolution was actually defined as an atheistic-materialistic construct in the textbooks. So, the authors changed the text.

Does a scientific theory change because people don’t like what it claims?

Darwin did the same thing. He described how a bear could turn into a whale by saying that the black bear is “swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water.”

When readers laughed at him for that concept, Darwin deleted it from his “theory”.
But even then, later, Darwin regretted the deletion and stood by his story.

So, there has been little interest in the truth from the very beginning of evolutionary speculations. It remains very much the same today.

 

[Vonsalza]

Interestingly, some atheists will complain: “Those are older editions! The new ones don’t contain those quotes!” But see? That’s the manipulation I’m talking about.

Well, if you would like to conflate that particular example of obvious revision with a negatively connotated “manipulation”, I think you’re mistaken to do that.

No doubt that many proponents of evolutionary theory are jack***es about it. I’ll agree with you enthusiastically on that point. All zealots struggle with this problem in general.

But a cornerstone of science and philosophy is the ability to revise toward truth. If a theory largely works but has a few hang-ups, it’s then reworked to address them. It’s the same as when an engineer tries to design a better [insert name of any engineered object].

In this way, scientific theory is flexible just like life itself. It adapts to the pressure of the “environment”. To compare the current state of any theory with previously discarded versions is an intellectually dishonest thing to do. It has changed.

Darwin did the same thing. He described how a bear could turn into a whale by saying that the black bear is “swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water.”

Whales are still interesting critters. Mammalian “fish” provide a good example of evolution because unlike their non-mammalian fellow water dwellers, they likely came from the land (or at least the littorals) at some point. We suspect this because their hipbones seem to suggest that once-upon-a-time, their ancestors did a bit of walking. We also suspect this because they’re mammals.

What you should work to internalize is that in no way is this idea mutually exclusive of a creator-God.

 

[reggieM]

To compare the current state of any theory with previously discarded versions is an intellectually dishonest thing to do. It has changed.

A theory is “discarded” when it has been falsified. But those who defend “evolutionary theory” (We’ve already agreed that you, yourself, reject mainstream evolutionary theory) refuse to say that it had been falsified in the past, then we have to look at previous versions as still valid. They’re still valid for someone. Even the current mainstream version is rejected by scientists (and by you).

What you should work to internalize is that in no way is this idea mutually exclusive of a creator-God.

I think we already agreed that you have your own unpublished version of evolutionary theory of some kind and it is because the consensus view is exclusive of a creator-God.

Consider this, if God guides mutations and selection, then no lab testing can be trustworthy because scientists wouldn’t know if God is guiding their experiments in the same way.

 

[IWantGod]

A theory is “discarded” when it has been falsified. But those who defend “evolutionary theory” (We’ve already agreed that you, yourself, reject mainstream evolutionary theory) refuse to say that it had been falsified in the past, then we have to look at previous versions as still valid. They’re still valid for someone. Even the current mainstream version is rejected by scientists (and by you).

I think we already agreed that you have your own unpublished version of evolutionary theory of some kind and it is because the consensus view is exclusive of a creator-God.

Consider this, if God guides mutations and selection, then no lab testing can be trustworthy because scientists wouldn’t know if God is guiding their experiments in the same way.

I tell you what reggie, lets just throw evolution out the window. Lets throw the age of the universe out the window and lets just go for plain old 6 day creationism. I mean at least they don’t have to speak about God guiding mutations.

 

[edwest2]

Well, if you would like to conflate that particular example of obvious revision with a negatively connotated “manipulation”, I think you’re mistaken to do that.

No doubt that many proponents of evolutionary theory are jack***es about it. I’ll agree with you enthusiastically on that point. All zealots struggle with this problem in general.

But a cornerstone of science and philosophy is the ability to revise toward truth. If a theory largely works but has a few hang-ups, it’s then reworked to address them. It’s the same as when an engineer tries to design a better [insert name of any engineered object].

In this way, scientific theory is flexible just like life itself. It adapts to the pressure of the “environment”. To compare the current state of any theory with previously discarded versions is an intellectually dishonest thing to do. It has changed.

Whales are still interesting critters. Mammalian “fish” provide a good example of evolution because unlike their non-mammalian fellow water dwellers, they likely came from the land (or at least the littorals) at some point. We suspect this because their hipbones seem to suggest that once-upon-a-time, their ancestors did a bit of walking. We also suspect this because they’re mammals.

What you should work to internalize is that in no way is this idea mutually exclusive of a creator-God.

The last sentence deserves to be examined in its wider social context, and must include Divine Revelation. Things as complex as life do not happen because time + certain chemicals “decided” anything. So the regular appearance of threads like this say nothing new as far as the Biology textbook is concerned but something about a constant pressure to accept that as far as science is concerned, we are an accident at best. The same with butterflies and so on. So, the choices are clear: accept atheist materialism or remember there was a literal Adam and Eve who committed Original Sin and this affected all of Creation. No, I’m not advocating that should be in science textbooks but it must be acknowledged. It must always be acknowledged.

Jesus Christ literally did things only God can do. To think otherwise denies the Creator.

Science, as presented here, is obviously not silent about God. It suggests we should consider ourselves free to do anything and only follow whatever comes from the minds of men. That leaves us unaccountable to a higher power.

Ed

 

[grannymh]

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?

Here is a point which could affect the basic question “do you think belief in the supernatural will die out or become a minority worldview?”

When we study the legends of ancient peoples, including shamans, we observe that human nature has an inherent sense of the supernatural. If that observation is correct, then the only way belief in the supernatural can die is when all humans die at the same time.

In addition, human nature is not a minority worldview: therefore, the universal world view which includes human nature would always have a sense of the supernatural.

When we throw in the principles of evolution, we discover the tenet that new species are formed in large populations which evolved from previous populations over time. Those who understand the Science of Human Evolution would say that the Homo/Pan split was not a population of two aka Adam and his spouse Eve.

There is the valid question – Is inherent sense of the supernatural the same as belief in the supernatural?

 

[Vonsalza]

as far as science is concerned, we are an accident at best.

Sure. As they lack any sort of guiding object, a happy accident is all we can be to them. But as I think I’ve repeatedly alluded to, this is a purely materialist approach; which is fine with me for the purpose of the explanation. When swapping the intake manifolds on my Ford, I don’t need a theistic approach for doing so, the one written by the atheist will work just as well. Same goes for exactly how God called humanity from the dust.

In the same vein, the coincidental pressures that nudged the evolutionary process one way or another seems like the product of chance, rather than that of a guiding creator. Perhaps I have an unfair advantage as a ex-Calvinist, but I’m happy with dual realities. Just as I have a free will, God is also sovereign over His creation and all things ultimately suit His plans.

Applied to evolution, the appearance of environmental pressure seemingly by chance and biological creatures responding to it can absolutely coincide with a God that is slowly and progressively bringing all things forth to suit Their will.

Science, as presented here, is obviously not silent about God.

Science, if presented honestly, deals with proven claims. As God is neither proven nor disproven, it should be rather silent on the topic. Now, as it pertains to individual scientists…

 

[reggieM]

Sure. As they lack any sort of guiding object, a happy accident is all we can be to them. But as I think I’ve repeatedly alluded to, this is a purely materialist approach; which is fine with me for the purpose of the explanation.

You are fine with the explanation that we are a happy accident?

When swapping the intake manifolds on my Ford, I don’t need a theistic approach for doing so, the one written by the atheist will work just as well. Same goes for exactly how God called humanity from the dust.

It sounds like a mechanistic approach. You seem to be equating the creation of the entire human person with repairing a car. That’s the materialistic approach and perfectly compatible with evolution. Evolution says it explains the entire human being - consciousness, rationality, spirituality – it all has a physical origin in mutations. So, we do need a theistic approach for that because the materialist evolutionary one (consensus science) does not work.

In the same vein, the coincidental pressures that nudged the evolutionary process one way or another seems like the product of chance, rather than that of a guiding creator.

That’s the evolutionary view. They will claim there is no evidence of design in creation, it all looks like a product of blind, unintelligent, chance and purposeless natural law. All of the immense diversity of life on earth all seems to be a product of chance in that view.

 

[rossum]

Design begins in the mind - with an idea.
You can’t measure the complexity of an idea in the mind, can you?

We can measure the complexity of the products of that mind. Have you ever calculated the complexity of the Bible?

rossum

 

[reggieM]

We can measure the complexity of the products of that mind. Have you ever calculated the complexity of the Bible?

This is the point though. “The products of the mind” are different than “the idea in the mind”. The reason we see complexity in the physical world is that God used finite entities to show us harmony and specification of order, and as compared with disorder and chaos. Physical things can show that.

But we believe that God is a spiritual being - immaterial. So, talking about “the complexity of God” is like talking about the complexity of thoughts in the mind. We can’t measure or observe them in the same way we do with physical objects.

Yes, the Bible is very complex - but it is a physical object written by human beings. It was put into human language so that we could understand it. God can communicate a full awareness of reality in a single, timeless moment. Some mystics have experienced that. So, God is not limited to a sequential, analogue process to communicate. But His creatures use that process, so He does the same in the Bible.

 

[Aloysium]

For a while now, the Gospel readings have been about Faith.
They resonnate within us when we hear about its being freely and wildly sown and requiring of nurturance to grow.
It makes sense that one would sell everything to buy the field where the treasure is buried.
And, what is faith, but knowledge of the mystery that is Existence, the awareness or realization of what has been revealed to be true.
Faith is something transcendent to our efforts, and is an expression of our relationship with God, that which connects with Him as the Truth, just as conscience is our link to His being Love.

For some feed-back on:

. . . 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.

The appearance is actually the reverse.

Atheism can be understood as a belief system devoid of faith. It fails to connect with the living truth that is goodness, beauty and the purpose of our existence.

The physical sciences allow us to create a virtual world through which we can relate to the material universe.
We are thereby enabled to perceive, understand and manipulate its mysteries.
Unfortunately, the current scientific version of our history on this planet reflects its fundamental misunderstanding of our ontological structure.
The jigsaw puzzle whose parts include a variety of fossils, jaw bones, femurs and skull parts, DNA remnants, arrowheads and other artifacts is being put together in accordance with a set of false assumptions as to how the world is governed. One of these has to do with the nature of randomness and the quick-fix-no-fix tendency to lump everything we cannot control into that category.
A true science will acknoledge that, as the earth was born of, revolves around and receives its energy from the sun, so too the material, analogously is centred around the One Source of all creation.

I tell you what reggie, lets just throw evolution out the window. Lets throw the age of the universe out the window and lets just go for plain old 6 day creationism. I mean at least they don’t have to speak about God guiding mutations.

Take it easy grandad, don’t knock over that checkerboard 'cause the game’s not going your way.
God is God, the Ground of this very moment as He is of all moments.
He brings everything, all of this, into existence in accordance to His plan.
Of course He is behind the flowering of this universe in all its wonder and diversity, the struggles that confront us and the fulfillment of our ultimate desire to be found in Him.

 

[grannymh]

For a while now, the Gospel readings have been about Faith.
They resonnate within us when we hear about its being freely and wildly sown and requiring of nurturance to grow.
It makes sense that one would sell everything to buy the field where the treasure is buried.
And, what is faith, but knowledge of the mystery that is Existence, the awareness or realization of what has been revealed to be true.
Faith is something transcendent to our efforts, and is an expression of our relationship with God, that which connects with Him as the Truth, just as conscience is our link to His being Love.

For some feed-back on:

The appearance is actually the reverse.

Atheism can be understood as a belief system devoid of faith. It fails to connect with the living truth that is goodness, beauty and the purpose of our existence.

The physical sciences allow us to create a virtual world through which we can relate to the material universe.
We are thereby enabled to perceive, understand and manipulate its mysteries.
Unfortunately, the current scientific version of our history on this planet reflects its fundamental misunderstanding of our ontological structure.
The jigsaw puzzle whose parts include a variety of fossils, jaw bones, femurs and skull parts, DNA remnants, arrowheads and other artifacts is being put together in accordance with a set of false assumptions as to how the world is governed. One of these has to do with the nature of randomness and the quick-fix-no-fix tendency to lump everything we cannot control into that category.
A true science will acknoledge that, as the earth was born of, revolves around and receives its energy from the sun, so too the material, analogously is centred around the One Source of all creation.

Take it easy grandad, don’t knock over that checkerboard 'cause the game’s not going your way.
God is God, the Ground of this very moment as He is of all moments.
He brings everything, all of this, into existence in accordance to His plan.
Of course He is behind the flowering of this universe in all its wonder and diversity, its struggles and their ultimate conquest to be found in Him.

Thank you.

 

[edwest2]

The National Academies of Sciences issued a statement regarding the compatibility of science and religion. Due to their copyright restrictions, I can’t even post a link to the source. A google search should work. That said, the statement is an encouragement to believers that unspecified religions accept the theory.

Why is this important? And why does it matter? Science is over here and religion is over there. Scientists have discovered a second code ‘hidden’ in DNA. The conclusion is simple: As complexity increases by one or more orders of magnitude, the possibility of chance diminishes to zero.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131212142151.htm

Ed

 

[reggieM]

Scientists have discovered a second code ‘hidden’ in DNA. The conclusion is simple: As complexity increases by one or more orders of magnitude, the possibility of chance diminishes to zero.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131212142151.htm

Ed

Thanks for posting that.

Scientists have discovered a second code hiding within DNA. The second code contains information that changes how scientists read the instructions contained in DNA and interpret mutations to make sense of health and disease. Genomes use the genetic code to write two separate languages. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other.

It is impossible to explain the origin of one code by a blind, random, unintelligent accident. Now add in another separate code that works in union with the first one?
My first response is to laugh.
Oh yes, evolutionists will already have an explanation before they even understand what they see. An absolute blind-faith commitment to materialism will never allow the slightest doubt.

 

[Vonsalza]

Evolution says it explains the entire human being - consciousness, rationality, spirituality – it all has a physical origin in mutations.

Again, I’m not sure this is correct.

Per Britannica Online: Evolution, theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.

Per Oxford: (In general) the proposition that all living organisms have undergone a process of alteration and diversification from simple primordial forms during the earth’s history; (in particular) a scientific theory proposing a mechanism for this process, now especially that based on Darwin’s theory of the natural selection of genetically inherited and adaptive variation.

Frankly, I think you want it to claim to do more than it herein claims so it’s easier for you to refute.

 

[reggieM]

Per Britannica Online: Evolution, theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.

That’s pretty clear. All organisms have their origin in other pre-existing types due to “modifications”. Humans have their origin in non-humans and the difference between human and non-human is due to “modifications”.

So, right here - clear as day.

If you want to get a human from a non-human, all that is needed is “modification”. That’s exactly what evolution proposes. Mutations and selection caused humans to evolve from non-humans. Nothing more.

But that conflicts with Catholic teaching. Evolution cannot tell us that a human being is a modified animal. The origin of a human being cannot be explained without reference to a soul.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14819176&postcount=125