Help with Creationism vs Darwinism

[Chris_W]

rossum,

The purpose of this thread was to address the question of how to respond to an (atheistic) evolutionist who asserted that the OP’s position of rejecting evolution is foolish or perhaps otherwise contrary to reason. I have posed to the best of my ability the reasons a person (especially a Catholic) might still reject the theory of evolution as a whole as flawed, without actually contradicting anything that can be scientifically known with any certainty.

The essence of that argument is for me to describe how the conclusions of faith rely on evidences external to science. Those evidences have led me to become convinced of the truths taught by the church of my faith. Some of what that church teaches seems to contradict some of the claims of evolutionists. Where those conflicts arise, I choose to believe what is (for me), the more certain of the two improvable beliefs, and I have attempted to show how I can take such a position without being hostile to reason.

Now, I understand you come from a very perspective than me. I’m a Catholic who cannot give assent of my intellect to the acceptance of evolution. You are a Buddhist who does accept the theory of evolution, seemingly without reservation. I have given my reasoning and you have been avid in your defense of evolution.

So getting back to the OP’s question, it seems to me that you might be in a good position to assess the results of this discussion, from your perspective as a non-Christian evolutionist. So, having heard all that I’ve had to say, my question to you is this:

While you certainly do not share my beliefs (yet heh heh), does my position seem unreasonable? I’m not asking if my arguments are persuasive, but merely if my position seems reasonable. Ultimately, that is all I have tried to accomplish herein…to provide the OP (and perhaps other who have been reading the thread) with a method of defending a non-evolutionist position from the accusation that such a position is somehow hostile to reason.

If you can conclude that my logic is at least reasonable, then the OP should be able to arrive at that same place with his evolutionist friend, even though both may continue to hold very different beliefs, just like you and I.

Peace,
Chris W

 

[Sugar_Ray]

I really only have three issues with evolution:

1. I reject that life began and developed by chance
2. I reject that monkeys evolved into men
3. I reject that a person could only accept points 1 and 2 as a result of unadulterated ignorance

Here are some reasons why:

Karl Popper: “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory”

Ehrlich (Stamford) and Birch (Sydney U.): evolution is “outside of empirical science but not necessaruly false”

Colin Patterson: “statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable to the fossil records…for there is no way to put them to the test”

SJ Gould: “Darwin’s theory is not generally experimantal, for singular and complex events are not so explained by any historical science”

J Monod: “It is obviously impossible to imagine an experiment that could prove the non-existence in nature of a purpose…objectivity obliges us to recognize the teleonomic [purposeful] character of living organisms…that they act projectively”

Given all of the above (and much more not shown here) I believe it is unreasable for me to say that evolution did not occur…but it is reasonable for me to say I choose not to believe it.

Dr George Wald said “a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through the hypothesis (note the word hypothesis) of spontaneous generation”. And here I may surprise you…I believe he is right. Scientists must exclude God from the equation and stick to what can be tested. However, evolutionists need to acknowledge that as a result science is limited because it is forced to operate under a belief system that cannot be proven or falsified… the belief that there is no Creator and no purpose.

Again, I will not say that therefore evolution is not true. On the contrary it is, like God, impossible to be falsified. What I am saying is that it is reasonable to reject evolution based on reason (see quotes above) and based on the belief in a truth that science is not permitted to consider…a divine creator.

I am sure you could quote experts to refute mine above and show evidence that I would then attempt to punch holes through…but what would be the point? We could go on forever. In the end both positions are reasonable based on evidence and while the scientist must remove God from the equation to adhere to his belief system the Christian must include God to adhere to his.

 

[Sugar_Ray]

Quick revision to my post above. I did not mean to suggest, with my last sentence, that one must reject God to be a scientist. But that to conduct scientific testing and analysis God is removed from the equation.

On re-reading my post I relaized that was worded poorly.

 

[zian]

OK, Ray. I won’t try to change your mind.

Promise!

But if you want to not accept something, at least correctly state that about which you do not wish to accept.

Concerning your proposition 1 - evolution is not chance; natural selection is the opposite of chance. see here

“evolution is not falsifiable” - well, honestly, I think a verifiable, bona fide out of sequence fossil would do the trick, don’t you. That’s why the YEC’s were falling all over themselves when they said they’d found human footprints at the Paluxy River site. However, they were incorrect.

 

[rossum]

Chris W:

You are a Buddhist who does accept the theory of evolution, seemingly without reservation.

When asked about the duration and extent of the universe, the Buddha remained silent. When asked why he did not answer the questions he said:“The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the universe is eternal, nor does it depend on the dogma that the universe is not eternal etc. Whatever dogma obtains there is still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.”

(Malunkyaputta sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 63)Buddhist scriptures are much less interested in history than is the Bible so there is nothing in Buddhism that prevents me from accepting the evidence for evolution.
Chris W:

While you certainly do not share my beliefs (yet heh heh)

Sometimes there is not a great deal of difference between the Buddha and Jesus: “Love others as you love yourself” - (Bhadramayakaravyakarana sutra 91). As for the rest, don’t hold your breath. I was brought up Christian and I converted to Buddhism over thirty years ago. Buddhism works for me; Christianity didn’t.
Chris W:

does my position seem unreasonable? I’m not asking if my arguments are persuasive, but merely if my position seems reasonable.

Our disagreement is less about evolution than about what are the valid sources of knowledge for the discussion of evolution. I limit the valid sources to scientific knowledge only; you also include the Bible and the authoritative statements of the Catholic Church. Given that you are arguing from a different base of knowledge then it is not unreasonable that you come to different conclusions. However there are others who argue from the same base of knowledge as yourself who come to a different conclusion about evolution. There is obviously not complete agreement on this subject within your extended knowledge base.
Chris W:

Ultimately, that is all I have tried to accomplish herein…to provide the OP (and perhaps other who have been reading the thread) with a method of defending a non-evolutionist position from the accusation that such a position is somehow hostile to reason.

Your position is not unreasonable, but it does lie outside science. The OP will probably have difficulty persuading a non-Catholic that the pronouncements of the Church have any authority in the discussion. The scientific evidence is very much on the side of evolution.

In general I have a lot of respect for the Catholic Church; any organisation that has lasted two thousand years has to be doing something right. One thing that it does do is to learn from its mistakes. After Copernicus, Giordano Bruno and Galileo the Church seems to have learned that in an argument on material things science will win over theology. Material things are where science specialises and on its home ground it is pretty much unbeatable. Since Galileo the Church has been very wary of making any authoritative statement that wanders into the scientific arena. Evolution appears to be a case in point. It seems to me that since 1859, when “On the Origin of Species” was published, the Church has had to recognise that science extended into a new area and that it needed to be more circumspect about the material origins of man than it had been before that date.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Sugar Ray:

1. I reject that life began and developed by chance

The beginning of life (abiogenesis) involved a great deal of chemistry and only a little bit of chance. Chemistry is not a chance process so abiogenesis was very far from a purely random process.

The development of life through evolution does involve chance in that the effects of mutations are random with respect to their advantage or disadvantage to the organism that carries them. Natural selection is not a random process; if a mutation gives a reproductive advantage then that mutation will spread through the population.

In short chance is involved, but is far from being the whole story.
Sugar Ray:

1. I reject that monkeys evolved into men

Technically men and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor, which would probably have looked more like a modern monkey than a modern man. This also depends on what you mean by “man”; does your definition include a soul? Evolution can only talk about how man’s physical body evolved. Do you reject that man’s physical body evolved from an ape-like ancestor? There are no fossil souls so science has no evidence for any hypothesis on the origin of souls.
Sugar Ray:

1. I reject that a person could only accept points 1 and 2 as a result of unadulterated ignorance

I agree. A rejection of evolution seems to be commonly based in the religious beliefs of the individual. It seems to be more prevalent in the USA than in Europe so nationality may also be a factor.
Sugar Ray:

Again, I will not say that therefore evolution is not true. On the contrary it is, like God, impossible to be falsified.

Your source is in error here, Charles Darwin got there first:If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.

(On the Origin of Species: Chapter 6)A fossil of a Devonian rabbit or a live pegasus would also serve to falsify evolution. If you start from a mistaken source then you are in danger of reaching a mistaken conclusion.

rossum

 

[Donald45]

Chris W:

The chances of me being aware of every argument made by anti-evolutionists and subsequently refuted by evolutioninsts, thereby ensuring I avoid reiterating them, is about zero, Don. If I thought I knew everything about the subject, I wouldn’t be in this discussion.

Therefore, perhaps you could do me the courtesy of an answer to the question rather than a mere rejection of my having asked it?

I may look those up someday, Don, but do you realize how many books are recommended in these forums? If I read those books, someone else would pose yet more books to help me avoid my aparrently stupid questions. I come to these forums to explore, learn and test my knowlege. If I wanted to dive into some books on evolution I would do so and I wouldn’t be here discussing that very thing.

I don’t mean to respond harshly. You sound frustrated at my ignorance, but please understand that referring me to books really isn’t what I’m looking for. I suspect you will find people in every thread on this web-site who do not wish to be told “that question is so old…would you please just read…”

However, if you have read those books, and can provide answers to the questions you see asked in these forums, I’m sure others would agree with me when I say, by all means provide the answers.

Please don’t take offense where none was intended (perhaps I need to make use of those ‘smilie faces’). No, you probably wouldn’t be aware of every argument and counter-argument on this topic, but one would assume that even a minimum of self-education on the issues involved would familiarize you with this extremely well-known “creationist” pseudo-argument (that is, the evolution of the eye), and the equally well-known (to scientists) refutation from the scientific community.

I would love to “do you the courtesy” of answering your question, however to do justice to the point would eat up more space than it seems prudent to take on a public forum. This is why I recommended the books that I did. Adequately understanding the issues involved in the so-called “creationism/evolution debate” requires far more than an occasional casual perusal of a website, since a basic beginning knowledge of the subject is necessary even to appropriately evaluate what one finds there. I assumed that someone who’s seeking the truth would want to devote himself to the task of self-education required to actually detect that truth when he finds it. That doesn’t mean that one needs to read every book recommended on the thread, but how about studying one or two representative volumes from both sides of the debate? Surely, one can commit to a careful reading of four books in order to better comprehend the subject under discussion.

The answer to the question you asked requires a basic understanding of science in general, and of evolutionary biology in particular, which this forum simply doesn’t allow room to properly explain. If you’re honestly interested in an answer, I refer you again to the books I cited; any of them would be of help. However, if you do not in fact take your own question seriously enough to study things more fully, then it’s likely that those who might be able to answer the question won’t take it seriously enough to bother.

May God bless you as you seek his truth.

Truly,
Don

 

[Chris_W]

rossum:

Buddhist scriptures are much less interested in history than is the Bible so there is nothing in Buddhism that prevents me from accepting the evidence for evolution.

Understood. Fair enough.

rossum:

Our disagreement is less about evolution than about what are the valid sources of knowledge for the discussion of evolution.

An understandable disagreement.

I’ve enjoyed this discussion rossum.

Thx,
Chris W

 

[Chris_W]

Donald45:

Please don’t take offense where none was intended (perhaps I need to make use of those ‘smilie faces’). No, you probably wouldn’t be aware of every argument and counter-argument on this topic, but one would assume that even a minimum of self-education on the issues involved would familiarize you with this extremely well-known “creationist” pseudo-argument (that is, the evolution of the eye), and the equally well-known (to scientists) refutation from the scientific community.

I’ve been hanging around this web-site for quite a while now, including reading about and discussing evolution, primarily from a philosophical and theological standpoint, and I had not seen that question posed. I heard a guy a couple weeks ago in an unrelated discussion mention the complexity of the eye which got me thinking about it. It was just a question, not some reiterated creationist line that requires an indepth well articulated scientific response.

But I wonder how Protestants would feel here in these forums if we Catholics took the attitude of “c’mon man, even the most basic exploration of Catholicism should’ve made you aware that your question has been answered and properly refuted for many many years”. Think they’d feel welcome here? I don’t.

I think this should be a freindly place where people practice patience. After all, no one is compelled to participate in the discussion if the subject is beneath them.

Donald45:

I would love to “do you the courtesy” of answering your question, however to do justice to the point would eat up more space than it seems prudent to take on a public forum.

I am content with rossum’s answer to my question. He simply answered my question. No fancy footwork, just enough info to allow me to determine the evolutionist may have a sufficient answer. From that point, if I want more info I can thoroughly read up on the subject.

Donald45:

I assumed that someone who’s seeking the truth would want to devote himself to the task of self-education required to actually detect that truth when he finds it. That doesn’t mean that one needs to read every book recommended on the thread, but how about studying one or two representative volumes from both sides of the debate? Surely, one can commit to a careful reading of four books in order to better comprehend the subject under discussion.

Do I sound so completely ignorant that you can safely assume I haven’t read from both perspectives? Huh, I feel like I’ve learned a ton in the last two years.

Donald45:

If you’re honestly interested in an answer, I refer you again to the books I cited; any of them would be of help. However, if you do not in fact take your own question seriously enough to study things more fully, then it’s likely that those who might be able to answer the question won’t take it seriously enough to bother.

Hmmm. I’m trying to interpret what you just said. I think it would be something like this: “If your honest (which is questionable) then do your homework…if however you are just asking rediculous questions for no apparent reason (which is what I suspect), then why should I give you the time of day?”

Get off your high horse, Don. I read what interests me, just like everybody else. If something new peaks my interest, I may ask about it and then determined whether or not it justifies a more in depth study. I provide answers to what may be “stupid questions” by others, and I’m sure this isn’t the last stupid question I will ask **of ** others either. But your responses invoke a reaction of indignation that is totally unnecessary.

…enough said. On to other threads.

Peace,
Chris W

 

[steveandersen]

Chris W

I’ve been thinking abut what we were discussing the other day; specifically how you had a problem with evolution because you couldn’t reconcile it with certain Church beliefs.

That got me to thinking…there are many beliefs that aren’t addressed by science such as Transubstantiation, the Virgin Birth, etc. To put it more broadly, there is no physical evidence for most of the underlying concepts of religion in general such as the soul or the afterlife. I still don’t understand why you take exception to this one little slice of science.

There are many articles of faith that we just throw our hands up at and say “that’s a mystery”.

That is what I meant many posts ago when I said I had no problem reconciling the two. They talk about different things.

shrug

 

[Donald45]

Chris W:

Do I sound so completely ignorant that you can safely assume I haven’t read from both perspectives?

If by “ignorant” you mean not “stupid,” but rather “uninformed” and even “ill-informed,” then one would have to say ‘yes’, wouldn’t he? Not that that’s bad, since we all start out that way on any given subject, do we not? What is somewhat troubling, however, is the fact that you seem to approach the search for truth in such a casual manner. You can’t be bothered to study the issues fairly and adequately, but prefer to respond defensively when the suggestion is raised. You demand a bumper-sticker answer to a bookstore question, then get indignant when you hear that more may be required.

So, yes, I would indeed “assume you haven’t read from both perspectives,” since if you had, you wouldn’t have needed to ask the question in the first place—for, if you’d studied this, you would most certainly have been familiar with the scientific response to your point. If you don’t know the answer, fine. But don’t bother getting mad when someone challenges you to take your own question seriously. Not knowing the answer to a question is understandable; justifying one’s lack of understanding from a defensive position of willful non-involvement with readily-available information is deplorable. I initially assumed you were asking a serious question that deserved a serious answer, and that you were serious in seeking the truth in the matter you yourself raised. I had no idea that you were simply interested in idle chit-chat on a complex issue which you’re willing to take little responsible action to pursue. I get that now, and won’t make the mistake of taking your posts nearly as seriously in the future.

Truly,
Don

 

[RikasAngel]

Hello All,

Evolution vs. Creationism is a very touchy subject nowadays. In reality, there is no major conflict between Evolution and Genesis. The Church supports Intelligent Design, i.e. God used natural processes to create the known Universe and everything in it. The Church does not explicitly support the Literalist interpretation of Genesis. For more info about this subject there a number of good books out there.

Origin of the Human Species by Dennis Bonnette
Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe

If your friend is an Atheist, there are good books that can help you deal with Atheism.

Basic:
Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
Beginning Apologetics 4 by Jim Burnham and Frank Chacon

In Depth:
Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, and Willam Dembski
The Drama of Atheist Humanism by Henri DeLubac
Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli
The Historical Jesus by Gary Habermas
The Gospel Jesus: Fact or Fiction? by Peter Bartley
The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig Blomberg
Miracles by C.S. Lewis
The Case for Easter by Lee Strobel

I hope these resources help!

 

[Chris_W]

steveandersen:

I’ve been thinking abut what we were discussing the other day; specifically how you had a problem with evolution because you couldn’t reconcile it with certain Church beliefs.

That got me to thinking…there are many beliefs that aren’t addressed by science such as Transubstantiation, the Virgin Birth, etc. To put it more broadly, there is no physical evidence for most of the underlying concepts of religion in general such as the soul or the afterlife. I still don’t understand why you take exception to this one little slice of science.

There are many articles of faith that we just throw our hands up at and say “that’s a mystery”.

I see your point. Its hard to put my finger on really. I guess I look at the conception of Jesus, the Eucharist, and many other things, as cases where science would say “we can only say normally that wouldn’t happen, but if you put a miracle of God into the equation we have no way to even address the claim”, whereas when it comes to the creation of man, and Eve from his side, it seems to me the scientific conclusions presented by evolutionists seem to say “no…that did not happen”.

I see a difference I guess. In most cases we would say there is **no ** evidence, but in the case of the special creation of Adam and Eve, they say there **is ** evidence, and that evidence says it did not happen. Do you see what I mean?

Keep thinking about it though, and challenging me…I’m not so closed minded that I couldn’t come to see things from your perspective.

 

[Chris_W]

Donald45:

…What is somewhat troubling, however, is the fact that you seem to approach the search for truth in such a casual manner. You can’t be bothered to study the issues fairly and adequately, but prefer to respond defensively when the suggestion is raised.

I have made quite clear in this thread that my concern with the theory rest entirely with regard to whether or not evolution and Catholicism contradcit each other. My objections haven’t been scientific in nature. I think the main contributors of this thread realize that fact, and I think they also realized that my question about the eye was in fact merely a curiosity point.

I guess my problem with your responses, Don, are the accusatory sound to them. You don’t just merely suggest a person read such and such a book, you plead for them to “please…read” and make comments about how easy it is to remain in ignorance.

Donald45:

Not knowing the answer to a question is understandable; justifying one’s lack of understanding from a defensive position of willful non-involvement with readily-available information is deplorable.

Give me an example of a question that has been asked in any of the forums on this site, Don, which has not been covered in a book somewhere. Your same argument could be posed to anyone who asks a question on any topic, for very rare is the truely new question. With the internet information on nearly any topic is “readily available”.

What you accuse me of is the same thing probably the majority of forum users (including yourself…unless you’ve never asked a topical question herein) could be accused of at one time or another. It’s kinda the whole point of participating in a discussion forum. If we all just wanted to read a book on every conceivable topic of interest, none of us would have the time to be here.

I am unconcerned with what you think if me really. The only reason I responded to you at all was in the hopes you might not offend someone else if you realized how you offended me. That’s all.

 

[Chris_W]

RikasAngel:

For more info about this subject there a number of good books out there.

…I hope these resources help!

What a very friendly way to recommend additional reading to others.

Thx,
Chris W

 

[davidford]

Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net

On the Origin of Life
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net

 

[hecd2]

RikasAngel:

Hello All,

Evolution vs. Creationism is a very touchy subject nowadays. In reality, there is no major conflict between Evolution and Genesis. The Church supports Intelligent Design, i.e. God used natural processes to create the known Universe and everything in it.

The Church does no such thing. Intelligent Design is a scurillous political movement that has made truth subservient to expediency. It claims that an unknown ‘Intelligent Designer’ meddled supernaturally with the universe to produce life and intelligence. It claims scientific merits where none whatsoever exist. What you describe is not ‘Intelligent Design’ but ‘Theistic Evolution’, which is a perfectly respectable stance.

For more info about this subject there are a number of good books out there:

Origin of the Human Species by Dennis Bonnette
Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe

Michael Behe’s hypothesis has long been refuted. The concept of irreducible complexity simply doesn’t hold water.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Donald45]

Chris W:

…I guess my problem with your responses, Don, are the accusatory sound to them. You don’t just merely suggest a person read such and such a book, you plead for them to “please…read”… The only reason I responded to you at all was in the hopes you might not offend someone else if you realized how you offended me. That’s all.

Well, how do we bow out of this gracefully? I offended you, and that was not my purpose. Yes, I strongly recommended studying the issues. The reason for my zeal is the continuous posting of theological ideas in the name of “science,” ideas that I believe are harmful to both theology and science. Such confusion is easily avoidable through a proper basic self-education in these matters. To this end, I recommended several sources. What one does with them is up to him. My energetic response was, I suppose, more directed to the broader Catholic community than it was to you, though it was your post that I chose to reply to. If I appeared to slam you publically, then please allow me to apologize publically. I hope you won’t allow my clumsy approach to dissuade you from pursuing answers to your questions. I certainly do not wish to offend anyone on these forums, and intend to be more mindful of my tone and wording in the future.

Thanks, and God bless,
Don

 

[davidford]

“it appears that you have created a god of the gaps problem”

Nancy Pearcey’s “DNA: The Message in the Message”
firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9606/opinion/pearcy.html

“A&E”

Rana, Fazale with Hugh Ross. 2005. Who was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man, 51-52.
About the book:
reasons.org/shop/customer/product.php?productid=690&cat=0&page=1

 

[davidford]

“Behe’s hypothesis has long been refuted. The concept of irreducible complexity simply doesn’t hold water.”

Julie Thomas on biological design
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-329osfF3jopn9U1%40individual.net

1 Corinthians 12 (New International Version)
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=i%20corinthians%2012;&version=31;
12 The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ.
13 For we were all baptized by[c] one Spirit into one body-- whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free-- and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

14 Now the body is not made up of one part but of many.
15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body.
16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body.
17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be?

18 But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be.
19 If they were all one part, where would the body be?
20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!”

22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other.
26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

1985 Cairns-Smith: “Present-day organisms are manifestly pieces of ‘high technology’, and what is more seem to be necessarily so.”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1123558517.582123.223890%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com