Help with Creationism vs Darwinism

[Chris_W]

Sugar Ray:

StevenAndersen:

I’m following the interaction between yourself and ChrisW and find it very interesting.

I do come from ChrisW’s perspective on this issue, but I have a question for you.

Do you believe that species evolved from one to another or that their characteristics change to adapt to their environment but they remain the same species?

Thanks

Hi Sugar Ray. Just as an FYI, you are describing the difference between what is commonly referred to as “microevolution” (changes within a species) which is clearly demonstrable and can be seen to occur even today…and “macroevolution” (changes from one species into a new and different species) which is not so easily verified. The debate generally is concerned with macroevolution, as most creationists (in my experience) do not see any issue with microevolution which would indeed be very difficut to deny.

 

[buffalo]

Chris W:

I get that a lot…the evolutionist attitude that anyone who disagrees must have their head in the sand because evolution is so blatantly obvious to any intelligent person. That arguement is less than pursuasive. Species changing over time is not what I object to, necessarily. Obviously a virus can become resistent to antibiotics. I have a problem with the notion that all of living creation evolved to its present state which is quite a different matter. Or, more precisely, I object to the idea that all of living creation is the result of natural causes, which ultimately is what evolution asserts.

I’ll share with you what “I find very hard to understand”. I find it very hard to understand why so many Catholic evolutionists so passionately reject or even insult my position, when my position contradicts neither the science they espouse, nor the faith we share.

I don’t consider myself naive and out of politeness I try to refrain from insulting those with whom I disagree.

The faith I am speaking of is this: Evolution seems to be able to account for much of what we observe…therefore many evolutionists believe it can account for all of what we observe, even if we cannot currently understand how. For example, the uniqueness of man discussed earlier on in the thread. It does not follow logically that because evoltionists see evidence for the evolution of some or even of **much ** creation that we can therefore conclude it can account for all of it. That is a belief, not a conclusion resulting from deductive reasoning.

Seems like I’ve heard that from evolutionists before as well. Please describe the “god of the gaps” you perceive in my reasoning.

Great! I am interested in the response you would give to a geneticist who asserts mankind could not have evolved from less than a group of about 50 human like creatures, bearing in mind the Church teaches we are all descendents of Adam and Eve…since “there is no problem reconciling” the two.

Mutations - do mutations gain DNA language or do they lose it?

 

[Chris_W]

steveandersen:

One only needs to examine a road cut, look in the display case of a museum, or come down with an antibiotic resistant infection to see glaring examples of the fact that species change over time. It is as much a fact as gravity.

You have touched on another aspect of this, steveandersen, and I will try to approach your answer with an open mind. You say all I have to do in look the case of a museum, for example. I don’t see it that way at all and perhaps you can help me understand better:

I got into an in depth discussion with some atheistic evolutionists a while back in which they tried their best to present data proving transitional forms. They described several specemin each one older than another and each one “directly comparable” yet distinctly different, perhaps even more complex than the older specemin.

My response to that kind of “proof” is this: If a person already accepts the idea of evolution, then i can understand why this would be evindence supporting their presupposition. But here the problem: If a person does not already accept the concept of speciel evolution, then this does not prove the evolutionist’s assertion because I look at that evidence and say

“cool. those are very interesting specemins. and the differences between them are interesting. the proposed dates given to the fossils is also interesting. but…I see no reason to conclude that one specemin is necessarily an evolutionary ancestor of the other. they could be simply different species sharing similarities…or perhaps we are seeing abnormalities of the same species (like midgets or giants in humans, or people with spinal bifida, or downs syndrome, or simese twins, etc. etc).”

What say you to my response? …and please do not respond by telling me how ignorant I am.

 

[wanerious]

"but…I see no reason to conclude that one specemin is necessarily an evolutionary ancestor of the other.

See, Chris, you even think like a scientist. This sounds like discussions at any one of a number of conferences I’ve been to.

they could be simply different species sharing similarities…

Ok, but accepting their relative ages would seem to make this conclusion unreasonable. Seeing a smooth transition of features over time is pretty compelling. (See the evolution of the whale skeleton, for example).

or perhaps we are seeing abnormalities of the same species (like midgets or giants in humans, or people with spinal bifida, or downs syndrome, or simese twins, etc. etc)."

This is always a danger, that we are sampling a population not indicative of the whole. But we feel better about this when we find a number of similar morphological types, so that our confidence grows with the numbers. It would be difficult to imagine a random sample of 50 people, all being midgets. And even more powerful is tracking these changes through time. Organisms that differ only in relatively small ways over thousands or millions of years are probably representative of the general population at the time, unless we are spectacularly unlucky.

I actually don’t disagree with you too much fundamentally, except that I feel that evolutionary theory is exceptionally good science, drawing from and congruent with many different fields, and ought to be taught in science classes. It is probable that, in the future, a new evolutionary model will supplant the current one, being more precise in its explanations and a refinement of what we understand today. Indeed, the theory undergoes small changes with each published paper. Perhaps one day we’ll have some biological understanding of consciousness, but I have a simple belief that there is no fundamentally biological essence to the immortal soul, which we alone possess in the animal kingdom.

 

[wanerious]

Chris W:

Hi Sugar Ray. Just as an FYI, you are describing the difference between what is commonly referred to as “microevolution” (changes within a species) which is clearly demonstrable and can be seen to occur even today…and “macroevolution” (changes from one species into a new and different species) which is not so easily verified. The debate generally is concerned with macroevolution, as most creationists (in my experience) do not see any issue with microevolution which would indeed be very difficut to deny.

And I’d add that it’s important to remember that the concept and inventory of “species” is not something handed down from on high, but is a manufactured scheme by humans, often before a true understanding of species’ relationships. We tend to classify how things look before we understand how they came to look that way. Some future, naive zoologist may well classify mastiffs and chiuauas as separate species, especially with only partial skeletons; but we, being witness to the evolution, recognize the gradual branches of the tree. I’d predict, though I don’t really know, that there are some extinct organisms classified as separate species that were later combined into the same species based upon more complete fossil or genetic information. So “one species changing into another” is really a meaningless phrase, since we are the ones deciding what makes a species. Even in today’s animal and plant kingdoms, it is very difficult to decide where in the tree a particular specimen belongs.

 

[Chris_W]

wanerious:

Ok, but accepting their relative ages would seem to make this conclusion unreasonable. Seeing a smooth transition of features over time is pretty compelling. (See the evolution of the whale skeleton, for example)…

I cannot argue with you wanerious. It is for that reason in recent years I have modified my stance from one of calling evolutionary science rubbish (heh, heh, yes, that used to be my position but it immediately removes any credibility I may have had when talking with scientists) to one of saying “**okay, I can see how the evidence can be viewed to support the theory of evolution”. ** Instead, I argue that while it may seem to support the theory, the evidence doesn’t necessarily indicate that evolution occurred (it might but not necessarily).

Now the evolutionist will argue “but there is no reason to to say it doesn’t when no other scientific theory is better supported by this evidence”. A valid argument, to which I reply "yes, I agree no other scientific theory makes better use of the evidence. My objection and my cause for rejection of the theory is theological".

Now, I understand why an atheist may dismiss me at that point, but where my frustration arises is when my fellow Catholics write me off as a loon, when it is the very same faith that they espouse which causes me to take such a position…allthewhile they are unable to help me resolve the contradictions I perceive.

wanerious:

I actually don’t disagree with you too much fundamentally, except that I feel that evolutionary theory is exceptionally good science, drawing from and congruent with many different fields, and ought to be taught in science classes…

Yes, I am discovering that you and I can communicate with each other fairly well about these things
Where you and I depart I suppose is when considering how important the distinction is between “the best explanation that science has produced thus far” and so many evolutionists’ presentation of “the fact of evolution”. It is only the latter statement that I vehemently reject.

If I thought evolution was presented in school as “the best theory developed so far considering what can be known scientifically” I really couldn’t object…because that statement presents it in a truthful manner…one in which evolution is not presented as unquestionably true and in which God is not excluded.

As usual, I appreciate your thoughful replies.

 

[steveandersen]

Sugar Ray:

StevenAndersen:

I’m following the interaction between yourself and ChrisW and find it very interesting.

I do come from ChrisW’s perspective on this issue, but I have a question for you.

Do you believe that species evolved from one to another or that their characteristics change to adapt to their environment but they remain the same species?

Thanks

It is not a matter of belief
I know that speciation occurs over time.
We have disease resistant bacteria and an avian flu outbreak scare as prime examples
Here is a link to observed instances of speciation both in the environment and in the lab
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Some people try to make a distinct between what they call “macro” and “micro” evolution but that is a false distinction in my opinion
I mean either things evolve or they don’t
You can’t just be a little bit pregnant

 

[steveandersen]

buffalo:

Can you give me references to the experiment that shows it is repeatable and measurable. I would like to study the data. Also, I would like to study the predictions.

try here for starters

 

[steveandersen]

Chris W:

…I don’t consider myself naive and out of politeness I try to refrain from insulting those with whom I disagree. …

Chris, you misunderstand. I wasn’t name calling

In fact I was referring to myself as the naïve empiricist
As I understand it Naive Empiricism is a branch of philosophy that is most identified with the scientific method

link

It relies heavily on induction, which is the act of extrapolating a general rule from limited observations. From your earlier posts I thought you were stating that you thought this was the equivalent of faith.

IIRC in previous posts you have referred to the philosophy of science. I was trying to educate myself and I though you would be familiar with the term.

Sorry for the mix up

 

[buffalo]

try here for starters

Will you narrow it down to pages that answer the specific inquiry?

 

[steveandersen]

buffalo:

Will you narrow it down to pages that answer the specific inquiry?

Well, the link I provided listed 27 observed speciations and two possible ones about half of which were done in the lab
At least one example specifically addresses the recreation of a species through controlled conditions.
It even identifies 4 separate mechanisms and provides an additional link to a list of other more recent papers

I’m not sure how much more specific I can get.

The theory predicts that under different conditions species may diverge.
The guys in the lab coats put species under different conditions and they diverged. QED

Most of the references are from the published literature and so would probably not be available on line (at least not for free)
But the authors names are provided so you can do some additional searching if you’re really interested

 

[buffalo]

steveandersen:

Well, the link I provided listed 27 observed speciations and two possible ones about half of which were done in the lab
At least one example specifically addresses the recreation of a species through controlled conditions.
It even identifies 4 separate mechanisms and provides an additional link to a list of other more recent papers

I’m not sure how much more specific I can get.

The theory predicts that under different conditions species may diverge.
The guys in the lab coats put species under different conditions and they diverged. QED

Most of the references are from the published literature and so would probably not be available on line (at least not for free)
But the authors names are provided so you can do some additional searching if you’re really interested

Is diverging the same as evolving into a higher life form? Or is it a loss of information?

 

[Chris_W]

steveandersen:

Chris, you misunderstand. I wasn’t name calling…Sorry for the mix up

My bad in assuming what you meant.

Thx,
Chris W

 

[Chris_W]

steveandersen:

Some people try to make a distinct between what they call “macro” and “micro” evolution but that is a false distinction in my opinion
I mean either things evolve or they don’t
You can’t just be a little bit pregnant

I see your point, but the terms are merely used to differentiate between adaptation of a living thing and actual evolution of that species into another different species. There is a difference between the two and these terms are used (as I understand it) to merely aid in differentiating them.

 

[Sugar_Ray]

To the determined few who are still hanging on and participating in this thread I have a question:

I have read more than once that the fossil record to support evolution is woefully lacking. I know others consider evolution to be settled fact based on that same evidence.

Obviously everyone comes at this issue carrying certain beliefs that can color the opinion. So how does a layman like myself settle this contradiction between seemingly credible sources?

 

[Chris_W]

Sugar Ray:

So how does a layman like myself settle this contradiction between seemingly credible sources?

That’s what its all about Sugar Ray (at least for me). I sincerely doubt there is some big systematic conspiracy to contrive evidence supporting the theory of evoution, though this may occur on an individual basis. Rather, there are numerous scientists from all fields of study conducting research trying to detmermine how nature works. It has been said in this thread many times, that the theory of evolution is the best answer science can give considering the evidence and the capabilities of current science. It bears some credibility for these reasons. Therefore I cannot think that we can just dismiss the claims of evolutionists out of hand.

That being said, one needs to consider what else can be known, from evidences not limited to the world of science. The convergence of evidences has led me to become convinced of the truths of the Catholic faith. For me personally, these truths trump all other conclusions man may make from any particular field of study.

Therefore, any conclusion that contradicts what the Church teaches, becomes suspect to me. If, upon investigation, I am unable to reconcile a claim of a scientist (for example) with what the Church teaches to be true, then I am forced by my own decision to abide by the law of non-contradiction, to reject that scientific claim as flawed.

How does this methodology apply to evolution? The problematic areas as I see it are as follows:

1. The Church’s teaching on Original Sin, and the related teaching that all of mankind are descendents of Adam and Eve contradicts the theory of evolution with regard to human evolution.
2. The Church’s teaching on the special creation of Eve, literally from the side of sleeping Adam, as presented by Fr. Harrison, seems to further contradict the claims of the theory of evolution with regard to human evolution.
3. The theory of evolution seems to evoke an attitude of naturalism such that (for example) the uniqueness of man, created in the image and likeness of God, is diminished so that humans are regarded as only insignificantly different than other mere animals. This is not a hard contradiction so much as a tendency I believe to lead people away from God, rather than to Him. (You can tell a good tree from a bad tree by its fruit).

In summary, I do not reject science altogether, nor do I reject all of the claims of evolution. But I do reject an acceptance of the theory as a whole, because of the theological problems I perceive, and my placing theological truths above the conclusions of men based on their natural observations and experiments.

That is the best explanation of a rational method I can give to you. I hope it helps answer your question.

 

[Sugar_Ray]

stevenandersen and ChrisW:

I read through the link stevenandersen provided and though I confess portions of the information were over my head I think I got the gist of it.

It seems to me the experiments reveal that certain organisms react or change resulting from pressure applied through breeding and environment.

This, however, does not seem to address how life began nor does it necessarily follow that evolution, as it is commonly understood among laypeople (monkeys turning into men) actually occured.

Am I right in asserting then that the critics of the fossil record are referring to the lack of evidence that exists to prove that a baboon gradually over time turned into Cindy Crawford? The experiments provided seem to show how it could happen, but am I right in saying there is no evidence to say it did happen?

If this is the case shouldn’t evolutionists be far more specific about what they mean when they declare evolution to be settled fact bearing in mind that most people take it to mean that life began by chance and that our ancestors were apes.

Also, would it not be appropriate for those who do not believe that life began by accident to refer to the scientific information that reveals the complexity of life and our environment to support (not prove) the idea that there is a creator.

ChrisW I agree entirley with your approach to this issue however I’m sure you will agree that there are times when we find ourselves in debtes with people who do not share our faith (which is how this thread got started by the way) and in these cases we need to keep the discussion in the realm of evidence and data. In these cases I find the evidence regarding the complexity of the universe, DNA, etc very helpful.

Interested in your thoughts.

 

[steveandersen]

Sugar Ray:

stevenandersen and ChrisW:

I read through the link stevenandersen provided and though I confess portions of the information were over my head I think I got the gist of it.

It seems to me the experiments reveal that certain organisms react or change resulting from pressure applied through breeding and environment.

This, however, does not seem to address how life began nor does it necessarily follow that evolution, as it is commonly understood among laypeople (monkeys turning into men) actually occured.

Well yes it does.
Since we don’t have a time machine to go back and witness events day by day we must look at the data we have and see if our experiments and theories fit
So we have closely related species grouped geologically and chronologically
We have supporting genetic evidence (as well as many other fields)
And we have field and laboratory data that demonstrate speciation

National Geographic had a nice approachable piece on this last year
link
Sugar Ray:

Am I right in asserting then that the critics of the fossil record are referring to the lack of evidence that exists to prove that a baboon gradually over time turned into Cindy Crawford?

Well you’re right in that the critics do indeed say that but they are wrong.
PS baboons didn’t become Cindy Crawford…they had common ancestry
Sugar Ray:

The experiments provided seem to show how it could happen, but am I right in saying there is no evidence to say it did happen?

Since the link included observations in nature of speciation then you are wrong to say there is no evidence.

(To be fair most of the examples are, necessity, from short-lived organisms like bacteria and viruses and since they reproduce asexually the definition of “species” can be problematic but the site does adress this and there were examples of plans and animals too.)
Sugar Ray:

If this is the case shouldn’t evolutionists be far more specific about what they mean when they declare evolution to be settled fact bearing in mind that most people take it to mean that life began by chance and that our ancestors were apes.

Scientists are generally fairly specific. Do you think that they are making claims they can’t back up? Some individuals may push the lilmits but the bulk of the literature is fairly staid.
Besides, on a more practicle note, does it matter what “most people” think about a scientific theory?
Scince isn’t a democracy.

“most people” would probably assert that if you drop two objects the heavier one would land first so should scientists not say that is wrong?
Sugar Ray:

Also, would it not be appropriate for those who do not believe that life began by accident to refer to the scientific information that reveals the complexity of life and our environment to support (not prove) the idea that there is a creator.

To do that they would have to propose a mechanism.
Besides they would be setting themselves up for a god of the gaps problem: If you say “we can’t explain X, so that means there is a God” and then someone comes along with an explanation for X you’ve got a problem. Your choices are to deny X, deny God, or move your goal posts.

Personally I think that evolution is a great demonstration of the sublime beauty of Creation. I’m not sure why people feel somehow threatened by it.

Can evolution be explained without reference to God? Sure. But so can fluid dynamics, soil mechanics, or the rest of the theories that we use to describe the natural world. No one seems to challenge those.
Sugar Ray:

ChrisW I agree entirley with your approach to this issue however I’m sure you will agree that there are times when we find ourselves in debtes with people who do not share our faith (which is how this thread got started by the way) and in these cases we need to keep the discussion in the realm of evidence and data. In these cases I find the evidence regarding the complexity of the universe, DNA, etc very helpful.

Interested in your thoughts.

Science can only address question regarding the natural world. A devout Christina can look at the world and say it is the work of Yahweh; a Hindu would attribute it to Krishna; and an atheist to none of the above but no one would be able to “prove” that to another without requiring a leap of faith.

If I’m 8 miles up in a 300 ton jetliner I don’t want to believe that the Bernoulli principle is a fact…I want to know.

 

[buffalo]

Chris W:

That’s what its all about Sugar Ray (at least for me). I sincerely doubt there is some big systematic conspiracy to contrive evidence supporting the theory of evoution, though this may occur on an individual basis. Rather, there are numerous scientists from all fields of study conducting research trying to detmermine how nature works. It has been said in this thread many times, that the theory of evolution is the best answer science can give considering the evidence and the capabilities of current science. It bears some credibility for these reasons. Therefore I cannot think that we can just dismiss the claims of evolutionists out of hand.

That being said, one needs to consider what else can be known, from evidences not limited to the world of science. The convergence of evidences has led me to become convinced of the truths of the Catholic faith. For me personally, these truths trump all other conclusions man may make from any particular field of study.

Therefore, any conclusion that contradicts what the Church teaches, becomes suspect to me. If, upon investigation, I am unable to reconcile a claim of a scientist (for example) with what the Church teaches to be true, then I am forced by my own decision to abide by the law of non-contradiction, to reject that scientific claim as flawed.

How does this methodology apply to evolution? The problematic areas as I see it are as follows:

1. The Church’s teaching on Original Sin, and the related teaching that all of mankind are descendents of Adam and Eve contradicts the theory of evolution with regard to human evolution.
2. The Church’s teaching on the special creation of Eve, literally from the side of sleeping Adam, as presented by Fr. Harrison, seems to further contradict the claims of the theory of evolution with regard to human evolution.
3. The theory of evolution seems to evoke an attitude of naturalism such that (for example) the uniqueness of man, created in the image and likeness of God, is diminished so that humans are regarded as only insignificantly different than other mere animals. This is not a hard contradiction so much as a tendency I believe to lead people away from God, rather than to Him. (You can tell a good tree from a bad tree by its fruit).

In summary, I do not reject science altogether, nor do I reject all of the claims of evolution. But I do reject an acceptance of the theory as a whole, because of the theological problems I perceive, and my placing theological truths above the conclusions of men based on their natural observations and experiments.

That is the best explanation of a rational method I can give to you. I hope it helps answer your question.

Science can drive down a dead end raod as well as anyone else. There is a momentum so to speak that can carry along many presumptions that can lead to error. It is a long way back to the fork that took you down that road.

Science builds upon its own knowledge.

 

[Sugar_Ray]

stevenandersen:

The reason I’m concerned with what most people think is because of the impact it has on society, number one.

Number two, I am interested in addressing what most people believe to be evolution because I am continually meeting people who believe I’m a nut because I do not accept that apes gradually evolved into men.

I take it that you don’t accept this either. But isn’t that what the average layperson believes evolution means? In my experience it is. And if that’s the case isn’t it important for the science and education community to clear up the misconception.

Don’t you believe the Devil is thrilled to have people walking around thinking it’s proven scientific fact that life began by accidnet and that people gradually evolved from monkeys?

When scientists and educators say evolution is proven fact I believe this is the idea that is reinforced withthin the minds of most people.