How evolution undermines Salvation

[Wolseley]

Well, Barbarian, all I can say is, you might see it as proof of evolution. I see it as balderdash. “It’s all random, and if useful is preserved.” Right.

My old daddy, God rest his soul, lost the tips of three fingers in World War II. This actually ended up being a useful adaptation, because he was a mechanic, and he could get those short fngers into places that long fingers wouldn’t fit.

I did not inherit his short fingers on the left hand, and my son did not inherit them from me, either, despite their useful function.

Now you’ll say, “Oh, but this takes millions of years, doncha know,” and again I will say, “Right.” As with all Darwinian leaps of speculation, “millions of years” is the special code for “by magic”.

Perhaps if my family started chopping the tips off the fingers of the left hand for the next 2,000 generations, we could make short fingers permanent. Right. That’s hogwash, and we both know it.

And it don’t take no Ph.D in biology to see that.

Ed, he’s all yours.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Not forever, but what is to prevent humanity from evolving as far from current homo sapiens as we are from a marsupial?

Why would this matter to God? Why should it matter to us?

 

[edwest2]

As a published author, the evolution theory template allows for a lot of speculative fiction, but certainly, no one was there to observe this. Life on this planet was designed to live under the same temperature range, gravity, sunlight, atmospheric pressure and other environmental variables. It is far more sensible to observe, today, a commonality in the design of life. The other approach assumes halting, tentative twists and turns, and rolls of the dice. Mutation, natural selection, can the trait be passed on? yes? no? It assumes that somehow, this is where everything ended up. I think a more rational view is that it was guided by God to be the way it is.

Jesus Christ was made flesh because of the sin of our first parents, Adam and Eve.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

Thank you. I wish I had been able to attend. There is much going on in biology now, and the interface between faith and science is a very interesting subject. Are papers available on the net?

The papers will be published this spring. I don’t know whether they will be made available electronically before then.

Petrus

 

[The_Barbarian]

Well, Barbarian, all I can say is, you might see it as proof of evolution.

Remember, science never proves anything. It is inductive, merely making inferences from the evidence.

I see it as balderdash.

As Everett Dirkson said; “most people are down on things they aren’t up on.”

“It’s all random, and if useful is preserved.” Right.

Good example.

My old daddy, God rest his soul, lost the tips of three fingers in World War II. This actually ended up being a useful adaptation, because he was a mechanic, and he could get those short fngers into places that long fingers wouldn’t fit.

Another good example. Acquired characteristics are not adaptations.

I did not inherit his short fingers on the left hand, and my son did not inherit them from me, either, despite their useful function.

Nor does evolutionary theory say they should.

Now you’ll say, “Oh, but this takes millions of years, doncha know,”

Actually, it could take a single generation. It happened in dogs, for example. The reason you have five digits is well known. Would you like to learn about it?

As with all Darwinian leaps of speculation, “millions of years” is the special code for “by magic”.

The difference, of course, is evidence. That’s how science works. ID depends on magic

Perhaps if my family started chopping the tips off the fingers of the left hand for the next 2,000 generations, we could make short fingers permanent. Right. That’s hogwash, and we both know it.

No kidding. Lamarckism was before Darwin, and is completely refuted by evolutionary theory.

 

[drpmjhess]

No kidding. Lamarckism was before Darwin, and is completely refuted by evolutionary theory.

Barbarian, I too was astonished by Wolseley’s apparent lack of education in the history of biology, as if Lamarck had never existed and been thoroughly refuted!

Petrus

 

[foolishmortal]

Well, Barbarian, all I can say is, you might see it as proof of evolution.
Remember, science never proves anything. It is inductive, merely making inferences from the evidence.

…and yet, scientists are so willing to burn other scientist’s professions at the stake for heresy when they have opposing viewpoints based on their inferences. What we have is one religion replacing the other. This new religion attacks the Church for controlling people’s free thinking and for the Galileo thing and overlooks its own Galileo event, the acceptance of Piltdown Man, and its burning of good scientists’ careers at the stake.

Maybe God could have directed an evolution of species (but theistic evolution is really a distraction for mainstream Christians away from the true origins of evolutionary thought and so it can coexist with random selection as a “whatever: if it makes them feel better about macroevolution” to colleges’ agnostic and atheist professors). I just see some microevolution of animal eyes and no species change evidence (just inconclusive evidence for that or for many possible theories that won’t see the light of day or will be ridiculed to unmarked folders because of Pharisees in the scientific community and their special interests and power hold for dear life, hoping their day of their righteous defamation doesn’t come before they get a nobel prize, make history books, or at least sell one or two of their own…hopefully, to them, to schools for indoctrinational purposes).

Not all the scientific community is like that, but special interests and unbridled capitalism killed the electric car, I believe, and makes China rich at the expense of the politicians’ constituents’ nation’s sovereignty and many other such sad problems. It’s a human nature fact. The “I’m an expert” or “I’m a scientist and you’re not” act is insecurity-based snobbery. You can even explain your findings. Expertise and authority can be abused to get away with anything and must be questioned…unless, of course, it is Church dogma. Even saints questioned the content of some pre-dogmatic teaching until it was declared formally. Science has no such authority and neither do its scientists. You’ll find no “free-thinkers” questioning that which questions Christian beliefs, though. If they tried, they would be tract distributors–kind of like science programs in schools are.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Remember, science never proves anything. It is inductive, merely making inferences from the evidence.

…and yet, scientists are so willing to burn other scientist’s professions at the stake for heresy when they have opposing viewpoints based on their inferences.

It can get a little rough when scientists disagree. It’s not gentlemen at tea, that’s for sure. But it works rather well. Most of us have made errors that we later found embarassing. If you have an easily-bruised ego, science is probably not for you.

What we have is one religion replacing the other. This new religion attacks the Church for controlling people’s free thinking and for the Galileo thing and overlooks its own Galileo event, the acceptance of Piltdown Man,

Evolutionists had good reason to doubt Piltdown, and when they finally showed it was a fraud, that was good for science. Hardly a “Galileo event.”

and its burning of good scientists’ careers at the stake.

I can’t think of a scientist who lost his career over Piltdown, although maybe someone should have. We don’t know who was responsible; all we know is that evoutionists debunked it.

Maybe God could have directed an evolution of species (but theistic evolution is really a distraction for mainstream Christians away from the true origins of evolutionary thought

Modern evolutionary theory was proposed by two theists. I thought you knew.

Not all the scientific community is like that, but special interests and unbridled capitalism killed the electric car, I believe,

Hardly dead. Hybrid electrics look like the future for automobiles. And capitalism is, for all its flaws, still the best system around.

The “I’m an expert” or “I’m a scientist and you’re not” act is insecurity-based snobbery.

For most of us, trust is better placed with people who actually understand, yes.

I’m a little baffled as to why you think electric cars and capitalism are germane to this discussion. Is is possible that we are seeing some sort of internal debate you’re having?

 

[Orogeny]

The “I’m an expert” or “I’m a scientist and you’re not” act is insecurity-based snobbery.

I always love this attack on scientists. How dare someone who has studied the subject being discussed actually utilize that education in the discussion!!

I really like to post this from talkorigins whenever I see an argument like that. This was really in response to a claim by a a non-scientist that evolution is impossible rather than an attack on scientists for relying on their education, but the post is very relevant just the same.

talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar05.html

Peace

Tim

 

[steveandersen]

I always love this attack on scientists. How dare someone who has studied the subject being discussed actually utilize that education in the discussion!!

I really like to post this from talkorigins whenever I see an argument like that. This was really in response to a claim by a a non-scientist that evolution is impossible rather than an attack on scientists for relying on their education, but the post is very relevant just the same.

talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar05.html

Peace

Tim

that is one of my favorite posts-of-the-month

 

[foolishmortal]

Liberals are generally better organized than conservatives, who usually go to forums and talk-radio. That’s why most newspapers are liberal and most talk-radio is conservative.
Just because some say they are Christian, means nothing today. The Bible says not to put away your wife and take up another, yet it’s done.

It’s funny how people quote the Pope when he says something, based on his scientists, that supports the possibility of evolution, but then it’s said that you can’t really speak on these things if you are not a scientist. If you are not a Catholic or your pastor doesn’t speak on these things, this is not applying to you.

You do not need to be a scientist to speak on everything. You can cite scientists’ work. I don’t claim to be smarter than scientists; I do claim philosophical arguments against it and let anti-macroevolution scientists speak for themselves using websites. If you had to be a scientist to speak on science, school science fairs would be pointless.

The Catholic Church had teachings about science for centuries. Evolution is little more than 100 years. It takes time to overthrow an abusive power structure. BTW Things must have added up for them as well before they had to realize they made a mistake or two. Because things added up for them, that could mean that your methods may not be correct either–it could be calibrated to measure things as such, based on common knowledge of the time. Things can change.

Piltdown Man was actually praised by the scientific community because it’s what they wanted to see. It’s their Galileo case. Science and religion are even and now it’s time for Einstein’s teaching on both to take play. Appeasement by self-conscious Christian groups because they felt the Galileo thing allowed the eugenic scientific community to get them by the…er, neck, does apply to that vision of harmony between the fields of knowledge.

I am not saying macroevlution absolutely could not happen, but there’s enough that students should not be burnt for disagreeing with the science standards or for giving both a fair hearing.

 

[buffalo]

What does evolution predict humans will look like in 1000 years?

 

[Orogeny]

Liberals are generally better organized than conservatives, who usually go to forums and talk-radio. That’s why most newspapers are liberal and most talk-radio is conservative.
Just because some say they are Christian, means nothing today. The Bible says not to put away your wife and take up another, yet it’s done.

What does that have to do with the discussion at hand? I consider myself quite conservative, and I have been married to the same woman for 22+ years.

It’s funny how people quote the Pope when he says something, based on his scientists, that supports the possibility of evolution, but then it’s said that you can’t really speak on these things if you are not a scientist. If you are not a Catholic or your pastor doesn’t speak on these things, this is not applying to you.

Maybe I just missed something, but who has told you that you cannot speak about science? The reason I posted that link is because you were complaining about scientists using their education to make their argument. You seem to be doing exactly what you are accusing scientist of doing, but in reverse.

You do not need to be a scientist to speak on everything.

Correct.

You can cite scientists’ work.

The point is (and is well made in the link I posted) is that if you don’t have a science background, how do you know that the work you are citing is valid or even saying what you think it is saying?

A perfect example is a poster who occasionally visits this forum named Peter Wilders. He and an associate of his constantly try to convice people who have no geology background that they have overthrown a very basic geological principle, when in reality they have done no such thing. It’s a false claim and, because they throw in some scientific sounding terminology and their targeted demographic is undeducated in basic geology, they are at least somewhat successful.

I don’t claim to be smarter than scientists; I do claim philosophical arguments against it and let anti-macroevolution scientists speak for themselves using websites. If you had to be a scientist to speak on science, school science fairs would be pointless.

Again, no one is saying that you cannot speak about science. If you do, though, and you are discussing science with a person who is trained in science, you should be sure your argument is correct.

The Catholic Church had teachings about science for centuries. Evolution is little more than 100 years. It takes time to overthrow an abusive power structure.

So how long will it take evolution to overthrow an abusive power structure? (just kidding!)

Piltdown Man was actually praised by the scientific community because it’s what they wanted to see. It’s their Galileo case. Science and religion are even and now it’s time for Einstein’s teaching on both to take play. Appeasement by self-conscious Christian groups because they felt the Galileo thing allowed the eugenic scientific community to get them by the…er, neck, does apply to that vision of harmony between the fields of knowledge.

You see, here is an instance where you should know a little history. Piltdown man was considered suspect from the beginning by many scientists and it was their scepticism that uncovered the fraud. How does that equate with the Galileo case?

I am not saying macroevlution absolutely could not happen, but there’s enough that students should not be burnt for disagreeing with the science standards or for giving both a fair hearing.

That’s an absurd statement and you know it. Who is getting burned? My faith is regularly questioned on these forums because I accept science, yet I would never make that ridiculous claim.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Pope: Science cannot fully understand the mystery of man

…Contrary to the Darwinian concept of man, Pope Benedict said that “man is not the result of mere chance, of converging circumstances, of determinism, of chemical inter-reactions.”

 

[buffalo]

What does evolution predict humans will look like in 1000 years?

We know how a mouse will look.

http://kolbecenter.org/graphics/Jokemouse_sm.jpg

 

[foolishmortal]

Uh…well, in a family therapy graduate course, our professor brought in an evolution expert. What that had to do with healing families is beyond me but I will say how that is what I’m talking about. I and a Fundie both questioned it. That was when I fell away from my Faith and was not following anti-evolutionary thinkers. I got a talking to about that. Modern science, when special interests are at play, can not be questioned. It falls into heresy. They gave me problems since, despite my grades and wanted to give my family and I family therapy (their version of psychological counseling).

 Conservative is like Pope John Paul 2 conservative.  That's fine even though that, nor the term traditional Catholic, means one's creds as such are evidently all there.

However, religious liberals (Republicans or Democrats) still run things these days off the credits (given as much by self-conscious Christians, fearing losing more credulity despite a lack of full credulity of the gatekeepers, as by the us vs them and we won factor) the Galileo issue gave them. Good people can be misled. We were all misled, and I’m sure the last Pope also, by the Perostroika being the end of communism in Russia. The one critic you cited is one of many and I’m afraid that your findings are not the only findings that can be gathered from “evidence”. You are led to see some things; if they are led, they are no different.

There is no concrete evidence of one species becoming another. You cannot observe it. That’s how it is. Maybe there is a strong likelihood it could happen, but nothing to factualize it as the answer. Maybe it’s not a 6 24 hour a day day creation either; maybe it was instantaneous or 6 million years, but that doesn’t mean one species became another.

Being Christian, you have to recognize the possibility of the Lord of Illusions playing mind games on a mass hypnotic scale as he has deluded us into passing up God to find pleasure in alcohol, sex and other material things. On a more extraordinary scale, Satan can make bizarre things appear on bodies of the possessed. In any case, though not perfectly formed, a minority report should make one look at their findings and accepted thought and question it. See if there is nothing fishy going on.
The religious imagery used by Darwinists says to me, if the critics of the theory’s scientific explanations against macroevoliution are not convincing, maybe the Darwinists have something to hide anyway.

Keep questioning commonly held beliefs about science. It’s good for it. It may not be creationism or macroevolution, but if you give me a flying spaghetti monster, I can give you panevolution–people coming from alien seed. Let’s say Christians never made a Hollywood movie giving the former credit; the latter did as that is what macroevolution was about (the replacement of God as Creator.

 

[drpmjhess]

Keep questioning commonly held beliefs about science. It’s good for it.

Foolishmortal, I wonder why public schools keep forcing the theory of gravity down our childrens’ throats. No one has ever observed gravity; we only observe things falling down. There is the perfectly serviceable pre-Newtonian view that Christians could hold, namely, the Aristotelian view that all things have a “natural place” – heavy things naturally fall downward, toward the center of the universe. Or, there is the voluntarist theological view that God wills all things to fall down. We should give equal time in physics classes to these three alternative explanations for why things fall down instead of up. Teach the controversy; teach more science, not less, and for God’s sake, don’t expel alternative science from the classroom as the dogmatic Darwinists are doing in biology.

Petrus

 

[foolishmortal]

It’s late night here in S. Korea, where I am for a year teaching English. The Church isn’t perfect here, but the Koreans usually dress formally, but not extravagantly, the women often wear veils and all beat their breast 3 times at the confiteor and bow before receiving Holy Communion. Apparently, vocations are high, at least for nuns, according to this ad2000 (sp?) Catholic site.

Goodnight! It’s been fun, but I need to do work stuff on my computer sooner, so I’ll stop here. I’m sure we entertained each other, but maybe we’ll entertain each other’s point of view as well.

Peace!

 

[steveandersen]

What does evolution predict humans will look like in 1000 years?

Pretty much like they look now.

With a very large and reproductively un-isolated population it would be very difficult for any large variance to accumulate in that sort of time frame.

One good prediction would be that populations with West African ancestry that no longer live in West Africa will continue to see the sickle cell gene selected against

What sort of selective pressures do you see acting over the next 1000 years?

 

[foolishmortal]

Ok, drpmjhess, one more tonight…noone has a problem with gravity, but a better understanding may arise that radically changes our understanding of why it does what it does. Give me (well, the others as I cant spend this time everynight with you all) a real controversy, smartaleck. That was weak.