Ignorance and evolution

[reggieM]

There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms." (Dobzhansky, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” in American Biology Teacher, March 1973

As I’ve pointed out a few times, we’re also learning that the “facts” of evolution can change also – as many have since 1973.

The facts of evolution are clear and are not disputed by any serious scientific worker…the present complex living forms have evolved by an unbroken and continuous process from the simplest living forms of the pre-Cambrian era.

I posted a few items on this also that showed that evolution did not occur in an unbroken and continuous process, if at all. The Darwinian “fact” was that changes occurred slowly and steadily over time. Then that fact was changed to say that changes occured all of a sudden.

Evolution is certainly disputed by many serious scientists. To dismiss the criticism of Darwinian theory entirely (as Barbarian does here) really is not objective or fair-minded as I see it.

It’s like saying that ID theory offers “nothing” of value. A sweeping charge like that assumes enough familiarity with the many writings on ID theory and that there is not one thing of value in any of it.

That’s simply an imbalanced and rash approach that is not convincing or credible as I see it.

 

[wildleafblower]

reggie << One Darwinian atheist attacking another. But there’s “nothing to discuss here” because everybody knows evolution is a fact. >>

One atheist biologist attacking another atheist biologist about how one writes about religion. Has nothing to do with science because both atheist biologists and theist biologists accept the science and know evolution is a fact.

Read a darn book will ya? The longer you and Ed don’t read any books the longer this thread will go on and we may just break the creation-evolution thread record! For that I’m grateful.

“Common descent is a general descriptive theory that proposes to explain the origins of living organisms…Because it is so well supported scientifically, macroevolution is often called the ‘fact of evolution’ by biologists…the evidence and the conclusion are independent of any specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. This is why scientists call universal common descent the ‘fact of evolution.’ None of the evidence above assumes that natural selection is true or that it is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Thus, the macroevolutionary conclusion stands, regardless of the mechanism.” (from my Nov 2002 summary of Theobald’s Evidences)

“Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.” (Dobzhansky, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” in American Biology Teacher, March 1973)

“…there has been a confusion, partly deliberate, of the fact that organisms have evolved with theories about the detailed mechanics of the process. The facts of evolution are clear and are not disputed by any serious scientific worker…the present complex living forms have evolved by an unbroken and continuous process from the simplest living forms of the pre-Cambrian era. To assert, on the contrary, that the earth and life on it are a paltry ten or hundred thousand years old and that the complex forms living today arose in an instant from unorganized matter is in contradiction not simply with the corpus of biological knowledge but with all scientific knowledge of the physical world. To deny evolution is to deny physics, chemistry, and astronomy, as well as biology.” (Lewontin, March 1982, Introduction to Scientists Confront Creationism [W.W. Norton, 1983] )

“Eventually it was widely appreciated that the occurrence of evolution was supported by such an overwhelming amount of evidence that it could no longer be called a theory. Indeed, since it was as well supported by facts as was heliocentricity, evolution also had to be considered a fact, like heliocentricity…The evidence for evolution is now quite overwhelming. It is presented in great detail by Futuyma (1983, 1998), Ridley (1996), and Strickberger (1996)…” (Mayr, What Evolution Is, page 12-13)

“In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.” (ITC statement 2004)

Phil P

Thanks Phil. Douglas Theobald. Yep, know him well. I didn’t realize he would become so famous. He has an incrediable sense of humor and is well-mannered. At least he did the last time I saw him. God bless him.

 

[PhilVaz]

reggie << I posted a few items on this also that showed that evolution did not occur in an unbroken and continuous process, if at all. The Darwinian “fact” was that changes occurred slowly and steadily over time. Then that fact was changed to say that changes occured all of a sudden. >>

I might have missed some of those, but you are confusing the fact of evolution with the mechanism. Scientists debate the mechanism (the how fast, and the patterns of evolution) as demonstrated in the quotes I gave, not the fact of evolution.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory

Phil P

 

[The_Barbarian]

I posted a few items on this also that showed that evolution did not occur in an unbroken and continuous process, if at all.

You’ve confused the fact that natural selection varies in pacing, with the fact that it is a continuous process.

The Darwinian “fact” was that changes occurred slowly and steadily over time.

You’ve been snocked by someone on that one. Thomas Huxley, one of the first people to accept Darwin’s theory, argued that pacing could change and even be very rapid.

Then that fact was changed to say that changes occured all of a sudden.

In geologic time. Maybe hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

Evolution is certainly disputed by many serious scientists.

“Many” is of course, a wild exaggeration. Taking the figures from the Discovery Institute, and comparing them to Project Steve, we get about 0.3% of people with doctorates in biology who doubt evolution.

To dismiss the criticism of Darwinian theory entirely (as Barbarian does here)

That is a dishonest misrepresentation. Barbarian has himself offered criticism of Darwin’s theory. Shame on you.

It’s like saying that ID theory offers “nothing” of value.

That’s true. It can do nothing for biologists. That’s why they don’t accept it. If it worked, they would be using it regardless of who disapproved. But it doesn’t work. And if it doesn’t work, what good is it?

A sweeping charge like that assumes enough familiarity with the many writings on ID theory and that there is not one thing of value in any of it.

Yes. As you learned, I know a lot more about ID than you do.

That’s simply an imbalanced and rash approach that is not convincing or credible as I see it.

Your education is proceding. Hopefully, when you know more about it, this won’t be such a mystery for you.

 

[anthony022071]

Unsupported irrational statement contridicted by all of modern science. You fail.

“Organization”,like “laws of nature”,implies by definition a mind that is creating order. But matter,which is unthinking,obviously can’t organize itself or create laws. Only a being which is extrinsic to matter can create order and laws of nature.
If modern scientists aren’t clear on that truth,then they are working on a false premise,and their conclusions are not trustworthy. They are interpreting the ways of matter and life forms in a literal-minded manner,as if Nature had a mind of its own.

 

[anthony022071]

Are you trying to apply the third law of thermodynamics? Hydrogen gas does not tend to disperse, it tends to collect, giving us stars.

Whether in dispersion or in consolidation,matter by itself creates no order. Order,by definition,is a product of thought,not chance or necessity.

Evolution says nothing about a creator, it just attempts to describe what we can see and measure.

That’s the whole problem! – the theory of evolution was not based upon the principle that there is a God who creates and sustains life,and it does not need such a principle either,because modern science has limited itself to the physical world and to things which are scientifically calculable and measurable. But without the premise of a God that creates and sustains life,the sciences operate on the tacit premise that life forms originate from chance. It doesn’t help much that some believers in the theory try to reconcile it with the belief in God,because the theory functions just as well,on its own terms,without the factor of God.

You, on the other hand, seem to not be worried about just a creator, but something that strikes you as ‘orderly’.

Not just me,but modern scientists themselves can’t help but speak in terms of natural order,laws of nature,natural selection.

If there is any order,laws,and selection in the world,then by definition there must be a mind extrinsic to nature at work.

Why should we assume that God is so constrained?

What is constrained about the belief that God that sets nature in order and maintains it?

Who is to say that, in order for us to have free will, the universe was born with a fabric of chaos and tens of billions of years were allowed to pass to see just where we would develop? The Church has no problem with evolution explaining the origin of our bodies, so who is to say that only after we had developed were we given the divine spark?

Not me. Evolution is process,not origin.
But unless we are clear about God being the originator of mankind,the evolution theorists - whether they believe in God or not - would interpret our origins along the lines of chance and necessity,rather than from a God that thinks.

This let’s us keep Genesis as an approximate explanation without having to resort to a whole lot of sibling based procreation.

The only time evolution and God seem to collide is when we aren’t content merely to have been created, but demand that God work in a very particular way.

No,the theory of evolution collides with the belief - the necessity even - that the world and mankind are the product of a creating God that ordered nature rationally with life-sustaining laws and that mankind’s rationality is from the rationality of a super-natural being.
Since the theory of evolution,as you say,doesn’t concern itself with a creator,that leaves chance and necessity as the originating god of the world.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Whether in dispersion or in consolidation,matter by itself creates no order.

Often, it does. Take a look at this:
http://simonward.com/wallpaper/causeway.jpg

No thought involved. Just matter consolidating itself.

Hurricanes are highly complex objects with a fractal structure that is highly ordered. And yet they form only with water, air, gravity, heat, and the rotation of the Earth. No thought.

Order,by definition,is a product of thought,not chance or necessity.

Not in the world God made.

Evolution says nothing about a creator, it just attempts to describe what we can see and measure.

That’s the whole problem! – the theory of evolution was not based upon the principle that there is a God who creates and sustains life,and it does not need such a principle either,because modern science has limited itself to the physical world and to things which are scientifically calculable and measurable.

So does physics and every other science. Do you have a point?

But without the premise of a God that creates and sustains life,the sciences operate on the tacit premise that life forms originate from chance.

Which, as Pope Benedict says, doesn’t mean that God isn’t behind it all.

It doesn’t help much that some believers in the theory try to reconcile it with the belief in God,because the theory functions just as well,on its own terms,without the factor of God.

So does plumbing. Why would you want plumbing or biology to help you believe in God?

No,the theory of evolution collides with the belief - the necessity even - that the world and mankind are the product of a creating God that ordered nature rationally with life-sustaining laws and that mankind’s rationality is from the rationality of a super-natural being.

Insert “plumbing” to get some kind of idea how foolish that argument really is. You aren’t comfortable with the idea that God can use contingency to His purposes. But the Church is.

Since the theory of evolution,as you say,doesn’t concern itself with a creator,that leaves chance and necessity as the originating god of the world.

Neither does plumbing. Or physics. Why not just accept that He does it as He does? Let God be God. He knows what He’s doing.

"But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence."
Then-Cardinal Ratzinger, in the report of the International Theological Commission.

 

[steveandersen]

Whether in dispersion or in consolidation,matter by itself creates no order.

In general things will go towards the lower energy state
Which in thermodynamic terms means an increase in universal randomness (which doesn’t precluded local order)

BUT planets and stars form because they are a lower energy state than dispersed dust clouds.

Order,by definition,is a product of thought,not chance or necessity.

well … yes no maybe

There are many things that appear to be ordered complexity, such as the movement of a school of fish, that are not the product of thought but the result of a few simple laws.

That’s the whole problem!

That is your whole problem?
That a naturalistic theory stays within its proper bonds and doesn’t address the supernatural?

– the theory of evolution was not based upon the principle that there is a God who creates and sustains life,and it does not need such a principle either,because modern science has limited itself to the physical world and to things which are scientifically calculable and measurable.

Yep
What is wrong with that? I don’t want God put on a petri dish

But without the premise of a God that creates and sustains life,the sciences operate on the tacit premise that life forms originate from chance.

That is a possibility >rimshot<

What do you expect them to do?

It doesn’t help much that some believers in the theory try to reconcile it with the belief in God,because the theory functions just as well,on its own terms,without the factor of God.

Once again what are you going to do? Force faith?
Require that people look for meaning?

Not just me,but modern scientists themselves can’t help but speak in terms of natural order,laws of nature,natural selection.

If there is any order,laws,and selection in the world,then by definition there must be a mind extrinsic to nature at work.

Maybe maybe not
If it were that obvious don’t you think everyone would agree with you?

As I said above there is a lot of apparent complexity in the world that isn’t really complexity.

We can wax philosophical and theological about ultimate causes but frankly that isn’t biology’s concern.

What is constrained about the belief that God that sets nature in order and maintains it?

Nothing
As long as that belief doesn’t stop you from further research because you assume that the answer to your question is already known.

Not me. Evolution is process,not origin.

yes, abiogenesis is a separate topic.

But unless we are clear about God being the originator of mankind,the evolution theorists - whether they believe in God or not - would interpret our origins along the lines of chance and necessity,rather than from a God that thinks.

Well presupposing your solutions is poor science. So once again what are you going to do?

And are you suggesting that there should be some sort of religious test for scientists?

No,the theory of evolution collides with the belief - the necessity even - that the world and mankind are the product of a creating God that ordered nature rationally with life-sustaining laws and that mankind’s rationality is from the rationality of a super-natural being.

Sez you.
I happen to agree with HH that the notion that the two are mutually exclusive is absurd.

Since the theory of evolution,as you say,doesn’t concern itself with a creator,that leaves chance and necessity as the originating god of the world.

Well
A No, it doesn’t, as evidenced by the many people here who appear to have no problem reconciling the two, and
B What is wrong with chance and necessity? Have you ever considered the probabilities associated with your conception? The odds of you being you and not just a sibling of you are astounding. And yet there you are.

 

[Peter_Wilders]

In response to my point:

Yes. But ET doesn’t allow for ‘ex nihilo’ creation of a living thing in its entire substance at the beginning of time.

Barbarian writes:

Neither does Genesis, which says that the earth brought forth living things after the initial creation.

Although the Council Fathers take into account Scripture and Tradition the object of their dogmatic formulations is to clarify Scriptural meanings. The reference point, therefore, is the Council text not Genesis. The liiving things produced in the intial creation period (whether an instant or six ordinary days) were “prototypes” (Bonaventure’s word). When they propagated, or more correctly pro-created, during the period of Providence more things were brought into existence but only those based upon the prototype. St. Thomas states (ST, I, Q 73 A 1, r.3)

…Nothing new was afterwards made by God, but all things subsequently made had in a sense been made before, in the work of the Six Days …those individual creatures that are now generated existed in the first of their kind

To Barbarian’s observation:

Creation if the universe may have been instantaneous, but creation goes on for a much longer time than six days.

I replied:

Not according to the Lateran IV definition:

He responded:

Then that would mean you could not be a creature of God.

Are you very sure you have it right?

Yes. Every soul brought into existence since the beginning of time is a new creation. The Body, however, which is the form of the soul is modelled on the prototype of our first parents Adam and Eve. It is no longer a new creation. Hopefully you will see this addresses your next question:

But how does that square with all the things that have appeared since that “instant?” God didn’t create those? Who did?

All things generated since the close of the creation period existed in the first of their kind (ST A 1, r.3)

He says:

Sorry, nothing on the web that supports your story. Nothing in Vatican I, either. Do you have any link at all?

Far from being a “story” this is the Church’s official teaching from the beginning of Christianity up to and and including Vatican I. It was articulated magisterially by Lateran IV in 1215. It was “re-interpreted” by late nineteenth century theologians to harmonise with what they believed to be the scientific “fact” of geological long ages.(DZ 428 and 1805)

In reply to my request for Pope Benedict’s words you gave an extract from the 2004 ITC report, for which I thank you. I am sure your intention was not to mislead, but the words in the extract were not those of the Pope (then Cardinal Ratzinger). The text was approved in forma specifica, by the written ballots of the International Theological Commission. It was then submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who gave his permission for its publication. I think you will agree that a President giving permission for the publication of a report can in no way be considered as its author or as agreeing to all the ideas it expresses. It is just a document for discusssion.

Peter

 

[Orogeny]

In reply to my request for Pope Benedict’s words you gave an extract from the 2004 ITC report, for which I thank you. I am sure your intention was not to mislead, but the words in the extract were not those of the Pope (then Cardinal Ratzinger). The text was approved in forma specifica, by the written ballots of the International Theological Commission. It was then submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who gave his permission for its publication. I think you will agree that a President giving permission for the publication of a report can in no way be considered as its author or as agreeing to all the ideas it expresses. It is just a document for discusssion.

Peter

First off, I do consider the ITC report to be representative of Cardinal Ratzinger’s belief or he would not have given his permission for it’s publication. Secondly, he has not refuted any of that document to the best of my knowledge. If you have any information to the contrary, I would be interested in seeing it. Unless you have that information, I think it is a very weak argument to say that what is in the report is contrary to his beliefs just because he wasn’t the physical author.

Peace

Tim

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Peter: these may help. If nothing else, they certainly help dispel the myth that the Pope approves of materialistic evolution.

ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/mbrumley_origins_aug06.asp

cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/lifescience/PhysicalAnthropology/EvolutionFact/Evolution/Evolution.htm

There is no myth that the Pope endorses “materialistic” evolution. HHe endorses evolution and rightly points out that God has created a magnificent universe through it. It would be absurd for the Pope to endorse “materialistic” (what I assume you mean is unguided) evolution.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Well, if both of the biologists agreed with you then there wouldn’t have been the argument that I posted.

sigh…try reading the post. You dissemble again and again. It is not mistake, its plain wilful refusal to consider the proofs because it threatens your world view. Shore up your faith. Your attacks are getting to the point of embarassment. Even I as a non-scientist can follow the arguments, go the sites, and confirm the evidence. You of course allude to the famous conspiracy theory and of course as usual nowhere prove the conspiracy. You are doing nothing but pursuing a fundamentalist agenda.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Evolution says nothing about a creator, it just attempts to describe what we can see and measure.

That’s the whole problem! – the theory of evolution was not based upon the principle that there is a God who creates and sustains life,and it does not need such a principle either,because modern science has limited itself to the physical world and to things which are scientifically calculable and measurable. But without the premise of a God that creates and sustains life,the sciences operate on the tacit premise that life forms originate from chance. It doesn’t help much that some believers in the theory try to reconcile it with the belief in God,because the theory functions just as well,on its own terms,without the factor of God.

Herein lies your problem. You I think believe that science chooses not to add God into its investigations. It chooses not to because it has no tools to investigate the supernatural. Of course the Vatican has made it very very clear that they are correct in this and has stated they have no right to speak as to God. I thnk the Church is correct. I see you don’t but wish science to add God into its work. Do you require this in geology, anthropology, paleontology and other science disciplines or just biology?

 

[Peter_Wilders]

Orogeny writes:

I think it is a very weak argument to say that what is in the report is contrary to his beliefs just because he wasn’t the physical author.

I respect your opinion but unfortunately it is of no help in establishing the truth, which, should surely be the object of the discussion.

The word “his” in the above quotation refers to today’s Sovereign Pontiff. Imputing to him words that he had neither spoken nor written as a proof of his present beliefs as Pope, in absolute terms, constitutes a grave error.

Peter

 

[Orogeny]

Orogeny writes:

I respect your opinion but unfortunately it is of no help in establishing the truth, which, should surely be the object of the discussion.

The word “his” in the above quotation refers to today’s Sovereign Pontiff. Imputing to him words that he had neither spoken nor written as a proof of his present beliefs as Pope, in absolute terms, constitutes a grave error.

Peter

“Grave error”. Could you refresh us as to what you mean when you use that term, Peter? Thanks.

Well, your opinion on this matter is based on your own wished for situation. The TRUTH, Peter, is that Pope Benedict, while he was Cardinal Ratzinger, approved the publication of a paper that clearly acknowledges common descent. Pope Benedict is a very
capable theologian. For your claim to be true, he would have to be ignorant of a magesterial teaching of the Church. Otherwise, he is in “grave error” as you prefer to say. As you pointed out before, that is the prefered term for “heretic”.

Now, it has been a while since that paper was released. Has no one told him that the paper contains a heretical teaching? Is he still ignorant, Peter?

Peace

Tim

 

[anthony022071]

No thought involved. Just matter consolidating itself.

What does this have to do with order? It’s just a lot of rocks laying on the ground. By “order” I mean functional order,like the living structure of cells,or the seasonal patterns which make life on earth flourish. Mankind’s rationality can only continously flourish in a continuous,rationally structured environment. And if the world is structured rationally,there must be a rational God who created it and maintains it.

Hurricanes are highly complex objects with a fractal structure that is highly ordered. And yet they form only with water, air, gravity, heat, and the rotation of the Earth. No thought.

Of course the elements do not think. But hurricanes are not a good example of “form” or “order” anyway. They are chaotic,volatile,and destructive.

Not in the world God made.

So what are you now saying? that God did not create and order the world with his reason?

So does physics and every other science. Do you have a point?

The science of physics also is misguided,when physicists come up with “chaos theories” to explain the origin of the universe.

Which, as Pope Benedict says, doesn’t mean that God isn’t behind it all.

If God is behind it all and God is eternal and omnipotent,then no theory of origins can be right which considers only physical evidence,and leaves out a God who is rational,and who is always creating and who is always maintaining the world.

So does plumbing. Why would you want plumbing or biology to help you believe in God?

That’s a thoughtless comparison. Plumbers are not about the business of coming up with theories of origin.

Insert “plumbing” to get some kind of idea how foolish that argument really is. You aren’t comfortable with the idea that God can use contingency to His purposes. But the Church is.

To act as if plumbing was comparable with a theory of the origin of life forms is foolish.

I already know God uses contingency to his purposes,because humans have free will and are liable,but not necessarly able to sin. But contingency itself originates no life. God is always the origin of life,because God is always working in the world,and the world is always dependent upon God. When geneticists speak of genetic mutations and natural selection as if Nature itself was determining the origination of species,they are making blind,unthinking Nature into a creator independent of the divine Creator. It doesn’t help much when they try to reconcile their theories with belief in God. The result is a kind of scientific pantheism like that which Giordano Bruno advocated.

Neither does plumbing. Or physics. Why not just accept that He does it as He does? Let God be God. He knows what He’s doing.

But do scientists know what God is doing when they disregard the factor of a God who is always creating and ordering through his reason?
They cannot know what God is doing in nature unless they know the nature of God.

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Barbarian on the highly ordered array of regular polyhedra in the Giant’s Causeway)

No thought involved. Just matter consolidating itself.

What does this have to do with order?

It was so highly ordered, that until very recent times, it was thought to have been constructed. People saw a high degree of order and assumed that it must have been designed. But they were wrong.

It’s just a lot of rocks laying on the ground.

Highly ordered polyhedra? Quite a bit more than a lot of rocks.

By “order” I mean functional order,like the living structure of cells,or the seasonal patterns which make life on earth flourish.

People used to think angels moved stuff around to make that happen. But we know better now. Every time we look at “design” in nature, and find out what it is, it’s not design.

Barbarian observes:
Hurricanes are highly complex objects with a fractal structure that is highly ordered. And yet they form only with water, air, gravity, heat, and the rotation of the Earth. No thought.

But hurricanes are not a good example of “form” or “order” anyway. They are chaotic,volatile,and destructive.

LIke humans. But there is a high degree of order, at numerous levels.

So what are you now saying? that God did not create and order the world with his reason?

Something much more subtle and wonderful than creationism can accept; God, at the moment of creation, produced a few simple rules (or maybe just one)

modern science has limited itself to the physical world and to things which are scientifically calculable and measurable.

So does physics and every other science. Do you have a point?

The science of physics also is misguided,when physicists come up with “chaos theories” to explain the origin of the universe.

I happen to have a bit of experience in chaos theory. It is, ironically the source of much order in the universe. It can, for example, explain the fractal nature of things like daily weather, stock market fluctuations, and so on. You have no clue as to what chaos theory can and does tell us.

Barbarian on contingency:
Which, as Pope Benedict says, doesn’t mean that God isn’t behind it all.

No theory can be a complete explanation of reality, because no theory can consider the supernatural. Pope Benedict also said that. And so do scientists.

Barbarian on the limitations of science and plumbing:
So does plumbing. Why would you want plumbing or biology to help you believe in God?

That’s a thoughtless comparison.

Nope. It’s perfectly apropo. Plumbing, like science, is methodologically naturalistic.

Plumbers are not about the business of coming up with theories of origin.

Neither is science, if you mean ultimate origins. Can’t do that, and no scientist tries to do that. What gripes you, I think, is that it does a great job of explaining natural origins, as the Pope said.

Barbarian observes:
Insert “plumbing” to get some kind of idea how foolish that argument really is. You aren’t comfortable with the idea that God can use contingency to His purposes. But the Church is.

To act as if plumbing was comparable with a theory of the origin of life forms is foolish.

Then you don’t understand science or plumbing. Both are methodologically naturalistic, seeking natural causes for natural phenomena.

I already know God uses contingency to his purposes,because humans have free will and are liable,but not necessarly able to sin. But contingency itself originates no life.

You have departed from the teachings of the Church, on that one.

God is always the origin of life

God is the origin of all things. But much of it, He creates by natural means.

When geneticists speak of genetic mutations and natural selection as if Nature itself was determining the origination of species

When carpenters speak of hammers driving nails as though hammers themselves were driving the nails…

they are making blind,unthinking Nature into a creator

…they are making blind, unthinking hammers into carpenters. Unless, of course they are speaking in a limited sense of tools doing what they were made to do. How silly.

Barbarian suggests:
Or physics. Why not just accept that He does it as He does? Let God be God. He knows what He’s doing.

But do scientists know what God is doing when they disregard the factor of a God who is always creating and ordering through his reason?

Do plumbers know what God is doing when they disregard the factor of a God who is always creating and ordering through his reason?

Let God be God. He’s doing it in the best possible way.

 

[Peter_Wilders]

Orogeny writes:

“Grave error”. Could you refresh us as to what you mean when you use that term, Peter?

To attribute words to someone which were not theirs is already an error; it is a relatively greater one when it is a Catholic attributing words to the Vicar of Christ which were not his. The gravity of the error depends upon the intention of the accuser to mislead. It is not a question of whether the Pope agrees with the words, only he can say that, but whether he was their author; which we know he wasn’t.

He continues:

For your claim to be true, he would have to be ignorant of a magesterial teaching of the Church.

Obviously the head of the Catholic Church is the one most aware of Her magisterial teaching; it is his personal mandate to safeguard it. The matter under discussion concerns not the knowledge but the interpretation of that teaching.

He then asks:

Has no one told him that the paper contains a heretical teaching?

As virtually all theologians since the latter part of the 19th century, (i.e. the preponderant majority) have accepted the changed interpretation of the word Latin word “simul”, there has been little reason for their successors to have put it in question. Their predecessors wanted to reconcile it with theories of geology being taught at the time, which the classical translation of “simul” didn’t allow. The fact that it is only in the last 30 years that those theories have been checked by modern experimental methods (and found wanting) that there has been reason to look again at the interpretation given to “simul”. It is most unlikely, therefore, that the Holy Father and modern theologians would be aware of the changed situation.

Peter

 

[Orogeny]

To attribute words to someone which were not theirs is already an error; it is a relatively greater one when it is a Catholic attributing words to the Vicar of Christ which were not his.

He approved the paper and has not retracted or refuted anything found in it. They ARE his words.

The gravity of the error depends upon the intention of the accuser to mislead. It is not a question of whether the Pope agrees with the words, only he can say that, but whether he was their author; which we know he wasn’t.

Wrong. He had authority over that paper and therefore they are his words.

Obviously the head of the Catholic Church is the one most aware of Her magisterial teaching; it is his personal mandate to safeguard it. The matter under discussion concerns not the knowledge but the interpretation of that teaching.

So, he can reinterpret magesterial teaching to fit current science? If so, what does that say about magesterial teaching? If not, then he is in grave error according to you.

As virtually all theologians since the latter part of the 19th century, (i.e. the preponderant majority) have accepted the changed interpretation of the word Latin word “simul”, there has been little reason for their successors to have put it in question. Their predecessors wanted to reconcile it with theories of geology being taught at the time, which the classical translation of “simul” didn’t allow. The fact that it is only in the last 30 years that those theories have been checked by modern experimental methods (and found wanting) that there has been reason to look again at the interpretation given to “simul”. It is most unlikely, therefore, that the Holy Father and modern theologians would be aware of the changed situation.

The fact is that the geology is very clear - the earth is about 4.6 billion years old. The Pope accepts that. Is he at odds with magesterial teaching?

Peace

Tim

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The Barbarian;3222650:

No thought involved. Just matter consolidating itself.

What does this have to do with order? It’s just a lot of rocks laying on the ground. By “order” I mean functional order,like the living structure of cells,or the seasonal patterns which make life on earth flourish. Mankind’s rationality can only continously flourish in a continuous,rationally structured environment. And if the world is structured rationally,there must be a rational God who created it and maintains it.

Hurricanes are highly complex objects with a fractal structure that is highly ordered. And yet they form only with water, air, gravity, heat, and the rotation of the Earth. No thought.

Of course the elements do not think. But hurricanes are not a good example of “form” or “order” anyway. They are chaotic,volatile,and destructive.

Not in the world God made.

So what are you now saying? that God did not create and order the world with his reason?

So does physics and every other science. Do you have a point?

The science of physics also is misguided,when physicists come up with “chaos theories” to explain the origin of the universe.

Which, as Pope Benedict says, doesn’t mean that God isn’t behind it all.

If God is behind it all and God is eternal and omnipotent,then no theory of origins can be right which considers only physical evidence,and leaves out a God who is rational,and who is always creating and who is always maintaining the world.

So does plumbing. Why would you want plumbing or biology to help you believe in God?

That’s a thoughtless comparison. Plumbers are not about the business of coming up with theories of origin.

Insert “plumbing” to get some kind of idea how foolish that argument really is. You aren’t comfortable with the idea that God can use contingency to His purposes. But the Church is.

To act as if plumbing was comparable with a theory of the origin of life forms is foolish.

I already know God uses contingency to his purposes,because humans have free will and are liable,but not necessarly able to sin. But contingency itself originates no life. God is always the origin of life,because God is always working in the world,and the world is always dependent upon God. When geneticists speak of genetic mutations and natural selection as if Nature itself was determining the origination of species,they are making blind,unthinking Nature into a creator independent of the divine Creator. It doesn’t help much when they try to reconcile their theories with belief in God. The result is a kind of scientific pantheism like that which Giordano Bruno advocated.

Neither does plumbing. Or physics. Why not just accept that He does it as He does? Let God be God. He knows what He’s doing.

But do scientists know what God is doing when they disregard the factor of a God who is always creating and ordering through his reason?
They cannot know what God is doing in nature unless they know the nature of God.

Scientists are not failing to regard anything. They are explaining the natural phenomenon and that is all they are capable of doing. Theology discusses how God is involved in creation. The pope has said that this is the correct method of operation. I’m sure you don’t wish to oppose the Pope;s conclusion on this.