Help with Creationism vs Darwinism

[Chris_W]

wanerious:

It certainly doesn’t fall outside the realm of science, as active scientific investigation of the connection between the material and the conscious is taking place. I don’t think, though, that this has been seriously addressed yet by any evolutionary theory — one day it will (with uncertain results), but for now, my point is that current evolutionary theory, the one presently taught in schools, answers different questions.

…I’m not arguing that we aren’t profoundly different, only that (behaviorally) it might just be a matter of degree, however large…

Fair enough. It seems like its been a while since you and I crossed paths here, wanerious, but you seem reasonable and thoughtful just like I remembered you.

wanerious:

I don’t argue that we don’t have it, only that it is possible that some brutes possess similar capabilities.

I suppose I must agree to a certain extent, but I think caution is good, for it would be easy to posit too much into that idea.

If we were to focus on the sense of guilt for example, one could argue about all the potential animal characteristics that seem to be similar. After which the difference between man and beast might not seem so vast. The same could occur dicussing our ability to communicate. The same with our social attributes. Our ability to love and be loved. And on and on.

People could suggest all kinds of similarities between man and beasts, in what I perceive as an aritificial attempt to minimize the uniqueness of man. The list could be quite long of possible similarities. But I ponder that we’ve been to the moon, we can produce nuclear energy, we communicate with people all over the world via little 1’s and 0’s flying around between satellites.

Is there really any comparison? Cumulatively, considering what man does, what he accomplishes, the astonishing good or evil he displays, there appears such an enormous difference as would be very difficult to deny.

I said it seems like an artificial attempt to minimize the uniqueness of man, because I believe the common man knows he is very different, and can only try to make his intellect convince his heart it isn’t so.

 

[Chris_W]

zian:

I believe that a number of the human attributes you mention here, complex language, shame, wanting to mediate conflict, etc., are perhaps more learned behaviors made accessible through human’s larger bra(name removed by moderator)ower. Hence they are to some significant extent a product of human culture. There may certainly be biological influences on some of these attributes that affect their cultural expression. Doubtless there are aspects of this that may be amenable to the means of science, perhaps less so with other aspects.

I can not argue with what you have said. There may be some things that are learned. But many things are a matter of capabilty not behavior.

Humans are vastly more advanced than even the closest evolutionary relative (perhaps an ape?) If humans evolved as is claimed, I merely think it requires an answer from a scientific perspective as to why and how such a huge difference exists between humans and the rest of the universe. Perhaps these things are being discussed somewhere. I just haven’t been privy to those conversations. My experience has generally been a denial of the scientific nature of the topic.

How did we get on this topic anyway? :whacky: My purpose in posting in this thread was to provide the OP with my thoughts on how to defend the creationist position when talking with an atheistic evolutionist. One thing leads to another I guess. Hope I didn’t hi-jack the thread.

 

[harinkj]

Chris W:

My purpose in posting in this thread was to provide the OP with my thoughts on how to defend the creationist position when talking with an atheistic evolutionist.

Impossible task. :tsktsk: Creationism, as it is commonly understood, is not Catholic church doctrine.:clapping:

Doesn’t the Catholic church believe that the evolution was used by God to create the physical part of life?

• Kathie :bowdown:

 

[PhilVaz]

Chris << My purpose in posting in this thread was to provide the OP with my thoughts on how to defend the creationist position when talking with an atheistic evolutionist. >>

Change creationism to creation position. The best defense of the Catholic creation position to an atheist are these two books:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/GENESIS.jpg

In The Beginning…: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall (1986, repub 1995) by the Pope

Perspectives on an Evolving Creation edited by Keith Miller with many contributors

Second one by evangelical authors. They quote Chesterton and John Paul II approvingly so they are all right by me. And yes, I like to repeat myself in evolution thread #379, 679, 327, 693, 210, 173, 209, 671, 203, 571, 320 and counting.

Phil P

 

[buffalo]

harinkj:

Doesn’t the Catholic church believe that the evolution was used by God to create the physical part of life?

• Kathie :bowdown:

Please provide a document.

 

[buffalo]

What the Pope just said: (Randomness is out)

THE CREATION, FIRST REVELATION OF THE DIVINE PRESENCE

VATICAN CITY, NOV 9, 2005 (VIS) - Psalm 135, the “great Hallel” or solemn hymn of praise sung by the Jewish people during the Passover, was the central theme of the Benedict XVI’s catechesis during the general audience, held this morning in St. Peter’s Square in the presence of thousands of faithful.

The key word of the psalm is “mercy,” the Pope explained, “part of the language characteristically used by the bible to express the alliance between the Lord and His people. … Within this relationship, God does not appear as an impassive and implacable Lord, like destiny against whose mysterious power all struggle is useless. Rather, He appears as a person Who loves His creatures, Who watches over them, follows them on their journey through history, and suffers from their frequent unfaithfulness to His merciful and paternal love.”

For the psalmist, said the Pope, the first sign of this divine love is to be found in the creation. “Before discovering the God Who reveals Himself in the history of a people, there is a cosmic revelation, open to all. …There exists, therefore, a divine message secretly inscribed in creation, a sign of the loving faithfulness of God, Who gives his creatures being and life. … The prayer of praise arises, then, from the contemplation of the ‘wonders’ of God … and is transformed into a joyous hymn of praise and thanksgiving.”

“Thus, from the works of creation it is possible to ascend to the greatness of God, to His loving mercy. This is what the Fathers of the Church teach us,” said Benedict XVI and quoted the words of St. Basil the Great on Genesis, affirming that "if some people … ‘imagine the universe without guidance of order, as though at the mercy of chaos,’ the sacred writer ‘immediately enlightened our minds with the name of God at the beginning of the story: In the beginning God created. … If, then, the world had a beginning and was created, seek out the One Who began it, the One Who is its Creator’."

AG/PSALM 135:CREATION/… VIS 051109 (360)

 

[Chris_W]

harinkj:

Impossible task. :tsktsk: :

Where do you see my logic flawed, harinkj, in defense of my positions? I have posed in this thread my reasons for rejection of evolution as a Catholic. Rather than just making an unfounded assertion, perhaps you could address what has been discussed so far and show me why my position is not justified.

It is NOT an impossible task.

harinkj:

Creationism, as it is commonly understood, is not Catholic church doctrine.:clapping::

Now there is an ambiguous statement. I have presented two specific issues for Catholics considering evolution: 1) the Church requires that we believe all of mankind descended from an initial pair and 2) the Church has officially taught that Eve did not evolve.

Please explain how you reconcile these two issues with evolution, since you seem so convinced the Church approves of evolution. No one has done that yet, at least that I am aware of.

If you are going to argue the two are compatible you need to be able to explain how. Last time I asked PhilVaz this question he admitted he couldn’t do it, but believes in both anyway.

Sorry, but my mind won’t allow me to hold two seemingly contradictory beliefs as both true.

harinkj:

Doesn’t the Catholic church believe that the evolution was used by God to create the physical part of life?::

Not that I’m aware of. The Church has said science and nature cannot contradict each other, and that evolution is more than just a mere hypothesis, but I have not seen Church teaching requiring belief that “evolution was used by God to create the physical part of life”.

 

[Chris_W]

PhilVaz:

Change creationism to creation position. The best defense of the Catholic creation position to an atheist are these two books:

Thanks Phil. I’ll look those up, as this has been a topic of interest to me for some time now.

As a little foresight though (for the interim) could you elaborate on what you mean by creationsim vs creation position. Not knowing the distinction between the terms, I cannot tell you of which position I am…I haven’t heard that before.

Thx,
Chris

 

[Chris_W]

PhilVaz:

Change creationism to creation position. The best defense of the Catholic creation position to an atheist are these two books:
In The Beginning…: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall

(1986, repub 1995) by the Pope…

Hi Phil,

I had a chance to read this over the weekend (not the book, but the link you provided). I fail to see how this document would satisfy an atheist, but it was an interesting read anyway:

Cardinal Ratzinger said:

"The technical and scientific attitude has produced a particular kind of certitude—namely, that which can be corroborated by way of experiment and mathematical formula. This has given humankind a certain freedom from anxiety and superstition, a certain power over the world. But now there is a temptation to view as reasonable and therefore as serious only what can be corroborated through experiment and computation. This means that the moral and the holy no longer account for anything. They are considered to belong to the domain of what must be transcended, of the irrational…"

This is precisely what I was getting at earlier on in this thread, objecting to the frequent evolutionists’ attempts to limit the discussion to empirical scientific evidence. It seems our new Pope and I agree on this.

He also said, “Indeed, to the question as to what distinguishes the human being from an animal as to what is specifically different about human beings, the answer has to be that they are the beings God made capable of thinking and praying”. This too is what I have argued in this thread …only to be rebutted even by theistic evolutionists.

But the most interesting thing he said (in my opinion) is in describing the conclusions of Monod, which I think mirror the normal presentation of the theory of evolution.

Monod’s view is described as explaining the means of evolution as a series of irreversible “mistakes” which are carried on by propagation of the species and ultimately giving a way for something new to arise.

I suspect many evolutionists would argue against the use of the word “mistakes”, instead preferring “random unguided changes” which are not “chance” happenings, but the result of changes in the environment and some inherent need for survival. The response applies nonetheless:

"What response shall we make to this view?" Cardinal Ratzinger continues "…we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance or error. Nor are they the products of selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence…"
What I find most interesting about his statements is when I consider the reason he objects to the idea of living creation resulting from mistakes, chance, or error. The reason for the rejection of this is answered in the last sentence I quoted…because they attempt to remove the intent of the Creator. A mistake, chance, and error can only be called such if they were not the intention of the person who caused such things to occur.

Now consider this: The same reasons for which Ratzinger rejects the idea of mistakes, chance or error, would also require rejection of the word “random”. For the word “random”, by definition, equally removes the intent, involvement, or design of the Creator for those occurances.

So then, my question to you is this:

Do you define the theory of evolution in a way that does not involve “random” variations and/or “accidental” consequences? It seems you would need to if you wish to agree with the document for which you have provided a link.

 

[buffalo]

Chris W:

Hi Phil,

I had a chance to read this over the weekend (not the book, but the link you provided). I fail to see how this document would satisfy an atheist, but it was an interesting read anyway:

Cardinal Ratzinger said:

"The technical and scientific attitude has produced a particular kind of certitude—namely, that which can be corroborated by way of experiment and mathematical formula. This has given humankind a certain freedom from anxiety and superstition, a certain power over the world. But now there is a temptation to view as reasonable and therefore as serious only what can be corroborated through experiment and computation. This means that the moral and the holy no longer account for anything. They are considered to belong to the domain of what must be transcended, of the irrational…"

This is precisely what I was getting at earlier on in this thread, objecting to the frequent evolutionists’ attempts to limit the discussion to empirical scientific evidence. It seems our new Pope and I agree on this.

He also said, “Indeed, to the question as to what distinguishes the human being from an animal as to what is specifically different about human beings, the answer has to be that they are the beings God made capable of thinking and praying”. This too is what I have argued in this thread …only to be rebutted even by theistic evolutionists.

But the most interesting thing he said (in my opinion) is in describing the conclusions of Monod, which I think mirror the normal presentation of the theory of evolution.

Monod’s view is described as explaining the means of evolution as a series of irreversible “mistakes” which are carried on by propagation of the species and ultimately giving a way for something new to arise.

I suspect many evolutionists would argue against the use of the word “mistakes”, instead preferring “random unguided changes” which are not “chance” happenings, but the result of changes in the environment and some inherent need for survival. The response applies nonetheless:

"What response shall we make to this view?" Cardinal Ratzinger continues "…we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance or error. Nor are they the products of selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence…"
What I find most interesting about his statements is when I consider the reason he objects to the idea of living creation resulting from mistakes, chance, or error. The reason for the rejection of this is answered in the last sentence I quoted…because they attempt to remove the intent of the Creator. A mistake, chance, and error can only be called such if they were not the intention of the person who caused such things to occur.

Now consider this: The same reasons for which Ratzinger rejects the idea of mistakes, chance or error, would also require rejection of the word “random”. For the word “random”, by definition, equally removes the intent, involvement, or design of the Creator for those occurances.

So then, my question to you is this:

Do you define the theory of evolution in a way that does not involve “random” variations and/or “accidental” consequences? It seems you would need to if you wish to agree with the document for which you have provided a link.

ChrisW from Buffalo. That is the essence of the argument. And since Revelation is true then science has some work to do.

 

[steveandersen]

………Humans are vastly more advanced than even the closest evolutionary relative (perhaps an ape?) If humans evolved as is claimed, I merely think it requires an answer from a scientific perspective as to why and how such a huge difference exists between humans and the rest of the universe. Perhaps these things are being discussed somewhere. I just haven’t been privy to those conversations. My experience has generally been a denial of the scientific nature of the topic.

Well science is there to explain how something happened not why so that may be why some may not answer the question

The best answer you will get is that humans evolved differently because they were under different environmental pressures
That is the explanation for the differences between all species

You can believe that humans were somehow special but you can’t prove it

……. My purpose in posting in this thread was to provide the OP with my thoughts on how to defend the creationist position when talking with an atheistic evolutionist. ……

Since one will be speaking from a point of faith and the other will view faith as simply just another opinion it is probably an impossible task. One of those same planet different worlds situations.

 

[Chris_W]

steveandersen:

Well science is there to explain how something happened not why so that may be why some may not answer the question

The best answer you will get is that humans evolved differently because they were under different environmental pressures
That is the explanation for the differences between all species

You can believe that humans were somehow special but you can’t prove it

Since one will be speaking from a point of faith and the other will view faith as simply just another opinion it is probably an impossible task. One of those same planet different worlds situations.

Intersting perspective. Are you saying the evoutionist can explain how humans are so unique? I haven’t heard that explanation, though I requested it earlier on in this thread. It seems that sceince is not explaining how it happened, as you suggest, but rather is asserting that it happened via evolution, and we’re supposed to just have faith in the process I guess.

It seems therefore, that the evolutionist position requires a bit of faith as well. So, no, it is not one speaking from a point of faith and the other speaking from opinion. They are both speaking from opinion with each believing his opinion is justified by other circumstantial evidence.

Justifying the rejection of evolution is not impossible because evolution is not necessarily a correct understanding of how the universe came to be. Furthermore, good headway can be made through the discussion in identifying the religion of Naturalism which underlies many peoples’ acceptance of evolution…a religion requiring faith (even if it’s adherents don’t realize that fact).

 

[steveandersen]

Chris W:

Intersting perspective. Are you saying the evoutionist can explain how humans are so unique?

I don’t think that anyone without a spiritual/philosophical bent would recognize humans as particularly unique

Strictly speaking, we’re a not too different from the rest of the creatures on the planet. We can eat them and they us so the biochemistry is compatible. Deceases jump species all the time. Lots of people are walking around with replacement heart valves taken from pigs, etc.

We are of this world…made from the dust as it were.

But by “how” humans are unique do you mean a list a traits? I’m sure there are good explainations for many of them.

“why” we are unique is another matter.
Chris W:

I haven’t heard that explanation, though I requested it earlier on in this thread. It seems that sceince is not explaining how it happened, as you suggest, but rather is asserting that it happened via evolution, and we’re supposed to just have faith in the process I guess.

Well you have to remember when you are talking about evolution there are 2 components to it

(1) The fact of evolution, which is just a reflection of the data collected from the natural world. That is the “what” happened
(2) The theory of evolution, which proposes natural selection as the mechanism for evolution. That is the “how” it happened
Chris W:

It seems therefore, that the evolutionist position requires a bit of faith as well. So, no, it is not one speaking from a point of faith and the other speaking from opinion. They are both speaking from opinion with each believing his opinion is justified by other circumstantial evidence.

No faith at all is required. A scientific theory has certain standards that it must meet. It must be measurable and repetable. There are numerous examples of observed speciation both in the lab and in the wild. The theory is supported independently by diverse branches of science and it fits the data remarkable well. Science is about confidence intervals not faith. If something else comes along that fits the data better then a theory is changed or dropped.
Chris W:

Justifying the rejection of evolution is not impossible because evolution is not necessarily a correct understanding of how the universe came to be.

perhaps, but you’ll have to prove that. Evolution is one of the most “proved” theories that exists

To me many rejections of evolution seem to be knee jerk in character and set the objector up for a “god of the gaps” dilemma
Chris W:

Furthermore, good headway can be made through the discussion in identifying the religion of Naturalism which underlies many peoples’ acceptance of evolution…a religion requiring faith (even if it’s adherents don’t realize that fact).

Why?

I don’t particularly care about various individual’s motives or personal philosophies. Research on evolution has been conducted by hundreds of thousands of scientist worldwide of all (or even no) faiths. All I care about is that the work is rigorous and elegant.

Personally evolution enhances my wonder at the world but that is not going to change the age of a bone or a strand of DNA.

 

[Chris_W]

It would be of benefit, steveandersen, if you would read what has transpired in the thread already. To answer your questions/comments is to repeat what has already been discussed.

My response to the theory of evolution is not “knee jerk.” In fact, my responses are well thought out it seems, for they have not been rebutted thus far. Sure, people keep chiming in long enough to make the assertion that my position is impossible to defend, but no one has shown me the error of my logic thus far in my attempt to defend it.

Read what I’ve said so far in this thread and respond to those arguments if you like. No offense, I’m happy to discuss this with you, but I really don’t want to start over again now just because you have jumped in.

 

[Chris_W]

steveandersen:

Well you have to remember when you are talking about evolution there are 2 components to it

(1) The fact of evolution, which is just a reflection of the data collected from the natural world. That is the “what” happened
(2) The theory of evolution, which proposes natural selection as the mechanism for evolution. That is the “how” it happened

Re-reading your response, I guess this hasn’t been addressed directly.

(1) Only evolutionists consider evolution a fact. And calling it a fact is a statement of opinion

(2) natural selection as a mechanism may be capable of explaining many things about the observable world. It is not capable, at least thus far, of explaining everything (i.e. the uniqueness of human beings as discussed earlier in this thread). Where it is not yet able to explain in a way that can be verified with empirical data, the evolutionist asserts “it is reasonable to conclude it can explain those things too” based on the conclusion that so many other things are explainable by that means. This is a statement of faith plain and simple.

Objective science would give a response of “we’re working on trying to identify such causes, theories are being explored, but as of yet we do not know whether or not the theory of evolution can explain that.”

Subjective science would give a response of “well, hey, look how many things seem to fit into the theory of evolution…therefore I conclude it probably can give an answer to that question too.”

steveandersen:

I don’t particularly care about various individual’s motives or personal philosophies. Research on evolution has been conducted by hundreds of thousands of scientist worldwide of all (or even no) faiths. All I care about is that the work is rigorous and elegant.

Interesting. To each his own I guess, but for me, it concerns me that the theory of evolution, and geneticists in particular, argue that DNA is such that humankind could not have decended from any less than a group of about 50 human-like creatures, while the infallible authority of the Church to which you and I are members (seems like your profile says you’re Catholic, but I could be wrong), requires us to believe we all descended literally from Adam and Eve.

I realize many people ignore such problems, but my mind prevents me from accepting two seemingly contradictory beliefs at the same time. it was explained to me as the law of non-contradiction. Therefore, as I have explained many times in this thread so far, I choose to believe the more certain of two unprovable beliefs.

 

[steveandersen]

Chris,

We’ve had this discussion last spring and agreed to disagree
Chris W:

…(1) Only evolutionists consider evolution a fact. And calling it a fact is a statement of opinion

I find it very hard to understand that someone would make such a statement.
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.
Chris W:

………. Where it is not yet able to explain in a way that can be verified with empirical data, the evolutionist asserts “it is reasonable to conclude it can explain those things too” based on the conclusion that so many other things are explainable by that means. This is a statement of faith plain and simple.

Objective science would give a response of “we’re working on trying to identify such causes, theories are being explored, but as of yet we do not know whether or not the theory of evolution can explain that.”

Subjective science would give a response of “well, hey, look how many things seem to fit into the theory of evolution…therefore I conclude it probably can give an answer to that question too.”

So it is induction that you have a problem with?
I wouldn’t consider that faith. That’s naïve empiricism.
Chris W:

Interesting. To each his own I guess, but for me, it concerns me that the theory of evolution, and geneticists in particular, argue that DNA is such that humankind could not have decended from any less than a group of about 50 human-like creatures, while the infallible authority of the Church to which you and I are members (seems like your profile says you’re Catholic, but I could be wrong), requires us to believe we all descended literally from Adam and Eve.

I realize many people ignore such problems, but my mind prevents me from accepting two seemingly contradictory beliefs at the same time. it was explained to me as the law of non-contradiction. Therefore, as I have explained many times in this thread so far, I choose to believe the more certain of two unprovable beliefs.

Like I said, it appears that you have created a god of the gaps problem for yourself. To me there is no problem reconciling DNA evidence and A&E

As to which is more “provable”, A&E are not provable at all.

shrug

 

[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

 

[buffalo]

Chris W:

Intersting perspective. Are you saying the evoutionist can explain how humans are so unique? I haven’t heard that explanation, though I requested it earlier on in this thread. It seems that sceince is not explaining how it happened, as you suggest, but rather is asserting that it happened via evolution, and we’re supposed to just have faith in the process I guess.

It seems therefore, that the evolutionist position requires a bit of faith as well. So, no, it is not one speaking from a point of faith and the other speaking from opinion. They are both speaking from opinion with each believing his opinion is justified by other circumstantial evidence.

Justifying the rejection of evolution is not impossible because evolution is not necessarily a correct understanding of how the universe came to be. Furthermore, good headway can be made through the discussion in identifying the religion of Naturalism which underlies many peoples’ acceptance of evolution…a religion requiring faith (even if it’s adherents don’t realize that fact).

A good reason why evolution should not be taught in science class.

 

[buffalo]

steveandersen:

No faith at all is required. A scientific theory has certain standards that it must meet. It must be measurable and repetable.

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.

 

[Chris_W]

steveandersen:

I find it very hard to understand that someone would make such a statement.
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.

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.

steveandersen:

So it is induction that you have a problem with? I wouldn’t consider that faith. That’s naïve empiricism…

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.

steveandersen:

Like I said, it appears that you have created a god of the gaps problem for yourself.

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

steveandersen:

To me there is no problem reconciling DNA evidence and A&E

As to which is more “provable”, A&E are not provable at all.

shrug

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.