Ignorance and evolution

[itinerant1]

itinerant1;3235299:

It’s true that the natural sciences cannot address or prove the existence of God,but the natural sciences,historically,are based on the assumption that the world is rationally ordered with laws,and is imbued with rationality,and that therefore nature can be fruitfully studied.

Now if the world is rationally ordered then there must logically be a rational being that ordered it.
The natural sciences need not address the existence of God,but they must recognize that the world is rationally ordered if they are to have their basis. Aristotle wrote that “no science proves its proper principles but they are postulated as self-evident”.
This is true of logic itself. The underlying assumption of logic,like the other sciences,should be that there is rationality in the world.
But modern logic,like the other modern sciences,disregards the metaphysical altogether,and so contradicts itself internally.

Yes,the pope has written about this problem in his books “In the Beginning” and “Truth and Tolerance”. It goes back to the denial of the metaphysical in philosophy and the natural sciences that began during the Enlightenment. If the metaphysical is denied in the sciences,then God is denied. And when God is denied,then Creation and the truth that man is made in the image of God is denied,and man is seen without soul,inherent dignity,and inherent rights. Agreed. Also I’ve read one of the two Ratzinger books, “Truth and Tolerance”. Excellent book.

I would say the very possibilty of science rests on the fact that there is order and design in the universe. However, the philosophical materialist and the theologian both agree with that statement. The difference is the materialist claims the order and design resulted from chance and random motion. The theologian knows that the ultimate cause of order and design is Divine activity.

This leads into a question about one of your statements, which reads as follows: “But modern logic,like the other modern sciences,disregards the metaphysical altogether,and so contradicts itself internally.” I am not sure if we are on the same page here when you say that modern science disregards the metaphysical. There is some ambiguity in the use of “disregards”. In one sense, it can mean that modern science ignores metaphysics. In another sense it can suggest that modern science denies metaphysics. In the first sense, I would say that modern science ought to ignore metaphysics, since the physical, and not what is above the physical, i.e. the metaphysical, is the proper domain of the natural sciences. In the second sense, if modern science *denies *the existence of metaphysical reality, then it is not making that denial *as a natural science. *A scientist making that claim, even though he may not realize it, is speaking not as a scientist, but as a man, or as a philosopher.

So, I am unsure what meaning you intended by “disregard”.

Also, it may be relevant to note that in Aristotle’s time, and for many subsequent centuries there was not a clear distinction between philosophy and the natural sciences as there is in modern times, in which the individual sciences have made great progress. Philosophy included philosophical knowledge proper, as well as that which we now call the natural sciences. This can create some confusion for the modern reader if he assumes every ancient philosophical text is necessarily philosophy proper. Conversely, Aristotle’s Physica is actually a metaphysics of nature.

The term “science”, in the strict sense, refers to an organized body of knowledge. In this sense, there is a science of metaphysics. I usually think of “science” in this sense, which is why I make the effort to often qualify the term as “natural science” when I am referring to those kinds of sciences. A reader can get confused by Aristotle’s use of the word “science” if it is understood in the common modern sense.

Good grief! I wrote all of this in response to just one of your words: “disregards”. I hate to think what I might have done if I had questions concerning a dozen or more of your words. I think I need a large beer.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The Church doesn’t teach the theory of evolution.

It teaches that evolution is consistent with our faith.

The Church wants to redirect the conversation about evolution back onto the necessary belief in Creation

If the Pope thinks it’s important to say that common descent is virtually certain, then I’d say you need to rethink your position.

 

[anthony022071]

I would say the very possibilty of science rests on the fact that there is order and design in the universe. However, the philosophical materialist and the theologian both agree with that statement.

People who believe in the random nature of the universe sometimes view the order and design in the universe as only apparent,not actual.

The difference is the materialist claims the order and design resulted from chance and random motion.

Natural scientists also speak of necessity and natural selection,which amounts to naturalistic determinism Nature self-sufficiently decides its own course,selects,and creates itself,independently of a Creator.
The inclination of the natural sciences is in the direction of a scientific pantheism like that of Giordano Bruno.

The theologian knows that the ultimate cause of order and design is Divine activity.

This leads into a question about one of your statements, which reads as follows: “But modern logic,like the other modern sciences,disregards the metaphysical altogether,and so contradicts itself internally.” I am not sure if we are on the same page here when you say that modern science disregards the metaphysical. There is some ambiguity in the use of “disregards”. In one sense, it can mean that modern science ignores metaphysics.

I meant the same thing as ignores,even though the definitions are not exactly the same. If you disregard something,you are also ignoring it.

In another sense it can suggest that modern science denies metaphysics. In the first sense, I would say that modern science ought to ignore metaphysics, since the physical, and not what is above the physical, i.e. the metaphysical, is the proper domain of the natural sciences.

It’s true that the physical is the domain of the natural sciences,but the natural sciences should be based on the recognition that the world is rationally structured and imbued with rationality – and rationality is something metaphysical.
So even if the sciences do not study metaphysics as such,they are based on a metaphysical reality of rationality,and they study that rationality in the world of Nature. The rationality that exists in the world is the connection between the sciences and God.

In the second sense, if modern science *denies *the existence of metaphysical reality, then it is not making that denial *as a natural science. *A scientist making that claim, even though he may not realize it, is speaking not as a scientist, but as a man, or as a philosopher.

Actually,it just occurred to me that natural science implicitly affirmsthe existence of metaphysical reality – that of Chance and Necessity. Chance and Necessity are as non-physical as rationality,so why are the natural scientists reading chance and necessity into the processes of Nature? Numbers also may be considered to be abstractions – do they really exist in the physical world?

Also, it may be relevant to note that in Aristotle’s time, and for many subsequent centuries there was not a clear distinction between philosophy and the natural sciences as there is in modern times, in which the individual sciences have made great progress. Philosophy included philosophical knowledge proper, as well as that which we now call the natural sciences. This can create some confusion for the modern reader if he assumes every ancient philosophical text is necessarily philosophy proper. Conversely, Aristotle’s Physica is actually a metaphysics of nature.

The theory of evolution,chaos theories,are,in a sense,metaphysical in nature as well.
The theory of evolution and chaos theories are also theories of history,like that of Hegel. They are world-views which challenge and undermine the world-view of Creation. While they seek to understand physical processes,they conclude by making physical processes into the very origins of order and life.
Evolution and origin are conflated – hence the title of Darwin’s book.

 

[itinerant1]

itinerant1;3235976:

I would say the very possibilty of science rests on the fact that there is order and design in the universe. However, the philosophical materialist and the theologian both agree with that statement.

Good points you have made below in red. Now, onto my questions and comments concerning these responses.

People who believe in the random nature of the universe sometimes view the order and design in the universe as only apparent,not actual.

Good points. Now, onto my questions concerning your responses.

Isn’t real v. apparent order just another way of saying what I said below in my next two sentences? If not, then what is the difference in regard to what the scientist observes as a scientist?

The difference is the materialist claims the order and design resulted from chance and random motion.

Natural scientists also speak of necessity and natural selection,which amounts to naturalistic determinism Nature self-sufficiently decides its own course,selects,and creates itself,independently of a Creator.
The inclination of the natural sciences is in the direction of a scientific pantheism like that of Giordano Bruno.

Granted that this climate exists in which some scientists (whatever the percentage may be), assume that nature acts independently of God. However, the distinction I was attempting to make is that if a scientist asserts that nature is sufficient unto itself, then he is not speaking as a scientist. He may be assuming that the only type of real knowledge is scientific knowledge. Hence, he makes a philosophical assumption that nature is sufficient unto itself, believing that he is addressing what the science concludes or infers from scientific observation, i.e. that his assertion is a scientific one.

He cannot conclude otherwise so long as he remains under the false assumption that scientific knowledge is the only valid and true form of knowledge. Nonetheless, the assertion he makes about nature is philosophical in nature.

The theologian knows that the ultimate cause of order and design is Divine activity.

This leads into a question about one of your statements, which reads as follows: “But modern logic,like the other modern sciences,disregards the metaphysical altogether,and so contradicts itself internally.” I am not sure if we are on the same page here when you say that modern science disregards the metaphysical. There is some ambiguity in the use of “disregards”. In one sense, it can mean that modern science ignores metaphysics.

I meant the same thing as ignores,even though the definitions are not exactly the same. If you disregard something,you are also ignoring it.

Agreed.

In another sense it can suggest that modern science denies metaphysics. In the first sense, I would say that modern science ought to ignore metaphysics, since the physical, and not what is above the physical, i.e. the metaphysical, is the proper domain of the natural sciences.

It’s true that the physical is the domain of the natural sciences, but the natural sciences should be based on the recognition that the world is rationally structured and imbued with rationality – and rationality is something metaphysical.
So even if the sciences do not study metaphysics as such,they are based on a metaphysical reality of rationality,and they study that rationality in the world of Nature. The rationality that exists in the world is the connection between the sciences and God.

To the contary, I am asserting that if the “world is rationally structured and imbued with rationality – and rationality is something metaphysical”, then it is not the place of the scientist to acknowledge this fact as a scientist, since it the matter appears to involve a judgement about higher causes. Higher causes cannot be addressed by the methods proper to the natural sciences. The scientist may make this judgment about rationality as a man, or philosopher, or as one having supernatural faith .

Now the crux of the matter is that the very existence of metaphysical aspects of nature is what makes science possible. It is not necessary to think a scientist needs to acknowledge the existence of metaphysical reality in order to conduct scientific work. Whether the matter of metaphysical aspects of matter even occurs or matters (just playing with word) to the scientis, it does affect what he observes or concludes from his research, just so long as he remains strictly with the limits scientific methods and procedures.

An good example that illustrates my point is that all physical matter or natural bodies have metaphysical components such as matter and form, act and potentiality. If a tree did not possess the immaterial *form *of treeness, then it could not be known by the intellect. Immateriality in nature is what makes knowledge possible, any knowledge, not just scientific knowledge. Now, no one maintains that it is necessary for the botanist to be aware of acknowledge the existence of *forms *in order for him to properly investigate trees and make true judgements about their observable properties. The conclusion here holds true as concerns “rationality”.

To be contiued in the next post…

 

[mschrank]

awesome post itierant

 

[itinerant1]

awesome post itierant

Thanks, mschrank.
I hope to get back, late tonight probably, and resume.

 

[itinerant1]

itinerant1;3235976:

anthony022071 replied,

"Actually,it just occurred to me that natural science implicitly affirmsthe existence of metaphysical reality – that of Chance and Necessity. **Chance and Necessity are as non-physical as rationality, so why are the natural scientists reading chance and necessity into the processes of Nature? Numbers also may be considered to be abstractions – do they really exist in the physical world? **[emphasis added]

“The theory of evolution,chaos theories,are,in a sense,metaphysical in nature as well.
The theory of evolution and chaos theories are also theories of history,like that of Hegel. They are world-views which challenge and undermine the world-view of Creation. While they seek to understand physical processes,they conclude by making physical processes into the very origins of order and life.
Evolution and origin are conflated – hence the title of Darwin’s book.” Anthony022071 is sure putting me through my paces.

This response is part 2 of 3, which may get a little confusing when you realize that part 2 and not part 3 discuss the number “3”, while part 3 will not be discussing the number “2”. Part 1 is found in post # 244, and it does not discuss any numbers at all. If you find what I just said to be a little confusing, your wisest course of action is to ignore this paragraph and proceed on down the post, (where I promise to confuse you even further).

+++

Numbers are an abstraction from sense knowledge of the physical world. Our idea or concept of “3” exists as a modification of the intellect, and as such, it has immaterial existence.

When one asks whether “3” itself (or any number), really exists in the physical world, there is any ambiguity created by how the question has been worded.

In one sense, we can reply that numbers do not exist as separate entities in the physical world. It is only the idea or concept of three or threeness really exists. The concept exists in the human mind and it can refer to any three things existing in the world.

In another sense of the phrase, we can ask whether our concept of “3”, (or any concept), really exists in the physical world. We can answer that concepts, which are modifications of the intellect, have accidental being in the real world. The existence is one, of course, that is not external to man. If concepts exist in man, and man exists in the real physical world, then we can say that concepts, or in this case, the abstracted number 3, really exists in the physical world.

That is, immaterial being, as we saw in my previous post #244, exists in physical things. For example, all physical things have immaterial components, such as matter and form. The human intellect is a power or faculty of man’s spiritual soul. Concerning the human soul, we are talking about a different level immateriality than that of the substantial forms and matter of other physical things. Man’s substantial form, the soul, is an incomplete spiritual substance capable of separate existence. So, now the question of the existence of our concept of “3” or threeness, must take into account the use of the word “in” when it is said that the human soul exists “in” the physical world, or when we more commonly say that the soul exists “in” man. “In” is a spatial term. It applies metaphorically, and not literally, to non-spatial reality, i.e. the soul.

Hence, we must be aware that when we say a tree exists “in” the physical world, or the soul exists “in” man, whose body is a part of the physical world, the word “in” is being used in two different senses. This pertains to my previously stated claim that “3” or threeness, in a specific sense, can be said to really exist in the physical world.

The next post will address the crux of the issue, Chance and Necessity. To avoid an overly complicated response, I will omit any direct discussion of chaos theory and Hegel’s philosophy

 

[itinerant1]

anthony022071 said,

"Actually,it just occurred to me that natural science implicitly affirmsthe existence of metaphysical reality – that of Chance and Necessity. Chance and Necessity are as non-physical as rationality, so why are the natural scientists reading chance and necessity into the processes of Nature? Numbers also may be considered to be abstractions – do they really exist in the physical world?

Response: Part 3 of ?

Evolution

Concerning your statement, “The theory of evolution, chaos theories, are, in a sense, metaphysical in nature as well.” I must say the reference to “The theory of evolution” is imprecise. There is no one theory of evolution. There are multiple theories of evolution. Pope Benedict says we should speak rather of theories of evolution. In addition, the fact that there are several theories of evolution means that “evolution” and “Darwinism” or “neo-Darwinism” are not synonymous. But the situation is yet more complex. It is not correct to speak of “The Darwinian Theory” either, since Darwin actually had five major theories of evolution.

Even so, I complicate things even more for myself by taking the position that not all five of Darwin’s theories are actually theories. That is, limitation regarding the evidence Darwin was able to acquire precludes qualifying all five theories as “scientific theory”. At least one of Darwin’s theories, should be classified instead as “scientific hypothesis”.

In any case, following Ernst Mayr, Darwin’s five major theories of evolution are as follows:

1. The nonconstancy of species (the basic theory of evolution)
2. The descent of all organisms from common ancestors (branching evolution)
3. The gradualness of evolution (no saltations, no discontinuities)
4. The multiplication of species (the origin of diversity)
5. Natural selection
   (From What Evolution Is)

It also helps to avoid unnecessary confusion if it can be specified which theory of evolution is being talked about.

Chance

Are chance and necessity (alternatively referred to as randomness and determinism) as used in science, actually metaphysical as *anthony022071 asserts? *A significant source of misunderstanding is a failure to specify what one means these terms. When an evolutionist says that evolution is random he is speaking ambiguously by making a sloppy, shorthand statement. It better to say that evolution is both random and determined.

What is required next is to consider examples or description of events that are considered random or determined. Only then are we in a position to judge whether there is anything metaphysical in the evolutionist’s use of the terms.

I think when an evolutionist says certain events occur by chance or randomly this does not necessarily imply anything contrary to the fact that God is the ultimate cause of events. On the other hand, if a scientist asserts that absolute randomness and determinism account for all events in the universe, and that there is no possible higher cause, then he is making a statement proper to metaphysical materialism, not science.

Consider common usage of “chance”. If Johnny says he ran into an old friend, Suzie, at the mall just by chance, this does not imply he intends anything about the existence or non-existence of God. It simply means the meeting of Suzie occurred as a result of multiple causes that remain unknown to Johnny.

A counter-argument to this says, Johnny is making a metaphysical claim if he considers Suzie to be a real dream-come-true sweetheart and consequently he asserts that the this chance meeting is conclusive proof for the existence of a most benevolent God.

We will take a closer look at chance. The Catholic philosopher, politician and martyr, Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius says,

“We may define chance thus: it is an unexpected event of concurring causes in those things which are done to some end and purpose. Now the cause why causes so concur and meet together, is that order proceeding with inevitable connexion, which descending from the fountain of Providence, dispotheth all things in their places and times.” De Consolation Philosophiae, 5, 1

We see here, according to a proper understanding of chance, that chance events do occur in the universe. Furthermore, one of the implications of Boethius’ definition for our purposes is that chance events by themselves, which are proximate causes, cannot account for the origin and multiplicity of beings in the universe. This requires the intention of the first cause, God. From this fact, it appears that we can legitimately assign chance to be a real player in certain aspects of evolution. And since chance events are proximate causes, they come within the province of the natural sciences to be considered in themselves, without any reference to whether or not there is a first cause, or “the fountain of Providence” from which all of these events descend according to their proper place and time.

Conclusion

Since all of this can be a lot to consider, I decided to stop here and continue my response in subsequent posts. I will be describing exactly what kind of events evolutionists explain as occurring by chance and by necessity. Also, I intend to comment on certain conclusions some evolutionists derive from chance events that are legitimate, and those that are metaphysical in nature and false, such as the denial of purpose in natural processes.

 

[Peter_Wilders]

;3230443]And another one bites the dust…

At that rate all of the “Creationists” (whether we are or aren’t) are getting fed up with the arrogance and condescension of the Darwinists and dropping out of these evolution threads, pretty soon the Darwinists will be the only ones left, all talking to themselves, amongst the chirping crickets.

The principle point arising from this post is the misuse of the word “creationist”. I pray that no Catholic contesting evolution theory considers him or herself a “creationist”. Historically, it was a Catholic term which distinguished Catholics from followers of the Aristotelian belief in an eternal world.

It lost its significance after the Lateran IV Council which ‘inter alia’ defined creation as having a beginning in time. It resurged in a Protestant format in the 1970’s with Henry Morris and the ICR. Their policy was to show through science the impossibility of evolution. Unfortunately, the premise of their theories and starting point of their models was the Bible. ICR members who coupled science with the Bible were called “creationists”, as were other non-Catholic groups that have sprung up since. Interpretations of their Scriptural evidence were, of course, based on Protestant theology.

It should be known, if not shouted from the roof-tops that Catholic scientists disputing evolution theory are strongly opposed to the “creationist” method of appealing to the Bible to support their arguments. Nonetheless, as witnessed on this thread, theistic evolutionists continue falsely to accuse their Catholic colleagues of being “creationists”; tantamount to calling them fundamentalist Protestants.

Evolutionists have used this “straw man” so effectively that arguments based on the most obvious empirical proof opposing evolution are dismissed or ridiculed. Any argument of substance advanced by Catholic scientists against evolution is simply side-stepped by introduction of the magic word “creationist”. It is no longer thought necessary to conduct a discussion with opponents of evolution upon scientific facts; ridicule, sarcasm and ‘ad hominems’ is the standard fare. Only recently I protested that evolutionists on the thread were making false statements in attributing the 2004 ITC wording on evolution to the Holy Father. The fact that the latter was not the author was resisted through several postings even though it was obvious to anyone willing to check the record. Such spurious tactics have given evolutionists the feeling they can dominate the debate The dominance achieved by the evolutionists by their spurious tactics has given them the impression they are entitled to manipulate the evidence to suit their beliefs. I witnessed another instance on this thread where peer-reviewed experimental evidence published by the Russian Academy of Sciences was dismissed (without any counter-evidence), not on scientific grounds but on the suggested poor quality of the source. Such arrogance (the accurate word use by Wolseley) is difficult to parallel, yet produced no protests from other interested parties claiming scientific training.

The creationist “straw man” method has been so successful in stifling objective public debate on the inadequacies of evolution that only the so-called “evidence” for evolution is heard. It is a method orchestrated by the scientific community to protect its naturalistic teaching on origins against exploitation of the many flaws they know it contains; the principle one being the total absence of proof. As a result it is politically incorrect to discuss the slightest scientific critique of the theory. Inevitably, the teaching profession is given no objective access to the proofs against evolution. The same situation prevails in the Church, the judiciary, politics and society in general. In Nazi Germany it was sufficient to allege Judaism regarding one’s opponent to win whatever argument. Now it is the false charge of “creationism”. With the dice so loaded in favour of evolution, it alone can win. But its condemnation by the Lateran IV Council still remains part of the deposit of Faith.

This is not the place to explain why the Holy Father continues to follow the evolution line, other than to say being the only one shown him by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, he has little option. It has even, as far as I am aware, become impossible to be elected to the Academy unless one adheres to the evolutionary paradigm. Today, leading biologists opposed to evolution are presenting written proof of the error of the Holy Father’s recent statements regarding “many proofs of evolution”, but their chances of success in the presence of the “straw man” mentioned above are less than minimal.

Shameful though it is to say, this grotesque uncharitable situation, continues under the aegis of organisations within the Catholic Church, giving even further encouragement to the uninformed evolutionary zealots to refuse the possibility of the truth rather than let it menace their pre-conceived ideas.

Peter

 

[The_Barbarian]

The principle point arising from this post is the misuse of the word “creationist”. I pray that no Catholic contesting evolution theory considers him or herself a “creationist”.

If not, it’s hard to understand why they would be using all the creationist arguments.

It should be known, if not shouted from the roof-tops that Catholic scientists disputing evolution theory are strongly opposed to the “creationist” method of appealing to the Bible to support their arguments.

It would be interesting to see a list of Catholic biologists who don’t accept evolution. I can’t think of one prominent one. Can you?

Nonetheless, as witnessed on this thread, theistic evolutionists continue falsely to accuse their Catholic colleagues of being “creationists”; tantamount to calling them fundamentalist Protestants.

Birds that swim and quack are often called “ducks.”

Evolutionists have used this “straw man” so effectively that arguments based on the most obvious empirical proof opposing evolution are dismissed or ridiculed.

Ah, some progress. Show us one of those. Please.

Any argument of substance advanced by Catholic scientists against evolution is simply side-stepped by introduction of the magic word “creationist”. It is no longer thought necessary to conduct a discussion with opponents of evolution upon scientific facts; ridicule, sarcasm and ‘ad hominems’ is the standard fare.

You do understand, that by posting no evidence for your position, but only personal attacks, you are encouraging the idea that creationists have nothing but ridicule, sarcasm, and ‘ad hominems’ to offer?

How about showing us that evidence that casts doubt on evolution?

The creationist “straw man” method has been so successful in stifling objective public debate on the inadequacies of evolution that only the so-called “evidence” for evolution is heard.

So, perhaps the intelligent thing for you to do, is to provide some. Please?

It is a method orchestrated by the scientific community to protect its naturalistic teaching on origins against exploitation of the many flaws they know it contains; the principle one being the total absence of proof. As a result it is politically incorrect to discuss the slightest scientific critique of the theory. Inevitably, the teaching profession is given no objective access to the proofs against evolution.

We don’t have good photographs of the tooth fairy, either. For the same reason. In science there are no “proofs” against evolution or any other theory. You aren’t a scientist, um?

In Nazi Germany it was sufficient to allege Judaism regarding one’s opponent to win whatever argument.

If you wait long enough, every creationist will eventually compare scientists to Nazis…

Now it is the false charge of “creationism”. With the dice so loaded in favour of evolution, it alone can win.

Having evidence is an overwhelming advantage in science, yes.

But its condemnation by the Lateran IV Council still remains part of the deposit of Faith.

If evolution was condemned by Lateran IV, it’s odd that the Pope acknowledges common descent is “virtually certain.” Is it possible you’ve re-interpreted the Magesterium to suit yourself?

This is not the place to explain why the Holy Father continues to follow the evolution line, other than to say being the only one shown him by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, he has little option.

He assembled and chaired the commission. How was he at their mercy?

Shameful though it is to say, this grotesque uncharitable situation, continues under the aegis of organisations within the Catholic Church, giving even further encouragement to the uninformed evolutionary zealots to refuse the possibility of the truth rather than let it menace their pre-conceived ideas.

This from the fellow who professes outrage at those who indulge in “ad hominem” rather than provide evidence.

 

[Peter_Wilders]

Barbarian writes:

It would be interesting to see a list of Catholic biologists who don’t accept evolution. I can’t think of one prominent one. Can you?

Yes quite a number. For instance, Dean Kenyon, former head of the biology department at San Francisco University and Richard Von Sternberg formerly of the Smithsonian in Wasington.

In response to my remark:

Nonetheless, as witnessed on this thread, theistic evolutionists continue falsely to accuse their Catholic colleagues of being “creationists”; tantamount to calling them fundamentalist Protestants.

and confirming the fact that sarcasm is the evolutionists’ principle resource, he writes:

Birds that swim and quack are often called “ducks.”

Next, to my point:

Evolutionists have used this “straw man” so effectively that arguments based on the most obvious empirical proof opposing evolution are dismissed or ridiculed.

He asks:

Show us one of those. Please.

Here I revert to my previous posts. The posts referred to peer-reviewed experimental reports published by French and Russian Academies of Sciences showing that strata in the presence of a water current do not form successively according to the principle of superposition but laterally and vertically at the same time. Your colleagues after using arguments from authority to deny their importance failed to give any contrary experimental evidence. They then attempted to down-rate the status of the Russian Academy and its professional reviewers.

He continues by saying:

In science there are no “proofs” against evolution or any other theory.

We agree, but there are proofs of certain facts. The stratigraphy experiments, for instance, demonstrate visually and mathematically that strata in running water form rapidly; none take millions of years to form. As evolution is based upon the geological time scale, as is the fossil record, evolution is left wanting.

Peter

Later on he writes:

If evolution was condemned by Lateran IV, it’s odd that the Pope acknowledges common descent is “virtually certain.” Is it possible you’ve re-interpreted the Magesterium to suit yourself?

I had already answered a similar question when he asked whether I was making up stories. My unacknowledged reply was:

Far from being a “story” this is the Church’s official teaching from the beginning of Christianity up to 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)

The problem has been that people with no specialised knowledge, although presumably with some scientific or theological training, try an off the cuff reply without undertaking the necessary research. These are fundamental matters and to treat them without serious thought, apart from being irresponsible can be dangerous to all concerned.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
It would be interesting to see a list of Catholic biologists who don’t accept evolution. I can’t think of one prominent one. Can you?

Yes quite a number. For instance, Dean Kenyon, former head of the biology department at San Francisco University

Kenyon says that the earth is very old, and that evolution is a fact.
While he is not a prominent biolgist, he does have a PhD in a related field, biophysics. I’m not aware of any great contributions to biology from Dr. Kenyon. He does, however, accept evolution, having repeatedly denied being a creationist. He is one of those odd duck ID’ers, like Behe and Denton, who accept evolution.

Richard Von Sternberg formerly of the Smithsonian in Wasington.

Sternberg, contrary to his claims, is not and never has been an employee of the Smithsonian Institute. I’m not aware of any great contributions to biology from Dr. Sternberg.

I repeat; can you think of any prominent Catholic scientists who deny evoution?

Nonetheless, as witnessed on this thread, theistic evolutionists continue falsely to accuse their Catholic colleagues of being “creationists”; tantamount to calling them fundamentalist Protestants.

Barbarian observes:
Birds that swim and quack are often called “ducks.” If you use the same ploys fundamentalists do, then you can hardly blame people for taking note of that fact.

arguments based on the most obvious empirical proof opposing evolution are dismissed or ridiculed.

Barbarian suggests:
Show us one of those. Please.

Here I revert to my previous posts. The posts referred to peer-reviewed experimental reports published by French and Russian Academies of Sciences showing that strata in the presence of a water current do not form successively according to the principle of superposition but laterally and vertically at the same time.

Did you know that folding and overthrust also are exceptions to the law of superpostition? Did you think geologists were unaware of these things, and fail to account for them? Did you honestly?

Your colleagues after using arguments from authority to deny their importance failed to give any contrary experimental evidence.

Cross-bedding and various forms of disruption/sorting are well-known. You aren’t a geologist, are you? If you didn’t know these things, you are at the mercy of anyone with a story to tell.

Barbarian observes:
In science there are no “proofs” against evolution or any other theory. You aren’t a scientist, are you?

We agree, but there are proofs of certain facts.

Nothing in science. “Proof” is logical certainty, which can never be gained by science.

The stratigraphy experiments, for instance, demonstrate visually and mathematically that strata in running water form rapidly; none take millions of years to form.

No, you merely observed that some can form rapidly. The examination of lake varves demonstrates that some do take millions of years to form. Results of cores taken from Enitiwok Atoll show that coral has been growing there for about half a million years above the peak of the volcano that is now subsided well below the surface. Details on request.

As evolution is based upon the geological time scale, as is the fossil record, evolution is left wanting.

You’ve been done in again, Peter. Isn’t it time you started checking what these guys tell you for yourself?

Barbarian observes:
If evolution was condemned by Lateran IV, it’s odd that the Pope acknowledges common descent is “virtually certain.” Is it possible you’ve re-interpreted the Magesterium to suit yourself?

Far from being a “story” this is the Church’s official teaching from the beginning of Christianity up to and including Vatican I.

So St. Augustine was also counter to the Church’s teaching? His idea that beasts evolved from simpler things, is against the Church’s teachings?

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)

Is it at all possible that the Pope, from the Chair of Peter, is more capable of telling us what is true about our faith than you are?

The problem has been that people with no specialised knowledge, although presumably with some scientific or theological training, try an off the cuff reply without undertaking the necessary research.

What is your scientific training, Peter?

These are fundamental matters and to treat them without serious thought, apart from being irresponsible can be dangerous to all concerned.

And the old Irony Meter goes off the scale.

 

[anthony022071]

However, the distinction I was attempting to make is that if a scientist asserts that nature is sufficient unto itself, then he is not speaking as a scientist.

I don’t see why he wouldn’t be speaking as a scientist.
Scientists have to interpret the evidence for evolutionary processes. They can’t just be mere observers of processes but must also draw conclusions about origins. Since they limit themselves to the study of the physical world and mathematical probabilities,they do not consider a Creator. So what is left to explain the origins of life forms? Chance,Necessity,and Nature,which originates and sustains its own. Without a Creator who is always creating,the observed processes are interpreted as the very origins of life. Process is conlated with origin.

He may be assuming that the only type of real knowledge is scientific knowledge.

When it comes to the study and interpretation of Nature,he can’t help but think that way. Successful businessmen don’t like to be told how to run their businesses,and natural scientists can’t take seriously unscientific interpretations of Nature,because that’s their business.

Hence, he makes a philosophical assumption that nature is sufficient unto itself, believing that he is addressing what the science concludes or infers from scientific observation, i.e. that his assertion is a scientific one.

He cannot conclude otherwise so long as he remains under the false assumption that scientific knowledge is the only valid and true form of knowledge. Nonetheless, the assertion he makes about nature is philosophical in nature.

In may be philosophical in nature,but natural scientists have no qualms about making that kind of assertion, because they believe the facts,the evidence,speak for themselves.
And there’s no room for an interpretation of the facts and evidence which does not attribute the cause of origins back to Nature itself.

It’s like the principle of sola scriptura is being applied to the Book of Nature.

 

[hecd2]

I witnessed another instance on this thread where peer-reviewed experimental evidence published by the Russian Academy of Sciences was dismissed (without any counter-evidence), not on scientific grounds but on the suggested poor quality of the source. Such arrogance (the accurate word use by Wolseley) is difficult to parallel, yet produced no protests from other interested parties claiming scientific training.

These protests do not change the fact that Berthault’s Russian papers are of abysmal quality. They are quite incapable of being published in Western high-impact journals because of their complete lack of scientific rigour. Nor does Peter’s rhetoric change the fact that the broad conclusions that Berthault draws from his flume experiments are unwarranted. Peter’s reluctance or inability to understand the simple point that the observation that laminae can form rapidly under a narrow set of laboratory depositional conditions does not mean that sedimentation as a precursor to consolidation and diagenesis always, or even commonly, occurs rapidly.

Peter’s fundamentally flawed logic can be explained partly by his deep ignorance of science, and partly by his misuse of science as a propaganda and rhetorical tool to support his creationist programme rather than as a means of discovering truth. His protests against the term ‘creationist’ are risible. He is a creationist, Berthault is a creationist, and the Kolbe Center is a creationist pressure group.

In any case, Berthault’s hubris is rightly ignored by the professional geological community and the flaws in his fundamentally flawed and impotent argument have been thoroughly debunked:

evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm
noanswersingenesis.org.au/henke_steno.htm
noanswersingenesis.org.au/questions_berthault_k_henke.htm

Alec
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm

 

[anthony022071]

To the contary, I am asserting that if the “world is rationally structured and imbued with rationality – and rationality is something metaphysical”, then it is not the place of the scientist to acknowledge this fact as a scientist, since it the matter appears to involve a judgement about higher causes. Higher causes cannot be addressed by the methods proper to the natural sciences. The scientist may make this judgment about rationality as a man, or philosopher, or as one having supernatural faith .

I don’t see how a scientists can’t acknowledge rationality in the world as a scientist,because if he doesn’t,then what is the basis for his research,his methods? If Nature is not imbued with rationality and laws,then there is nothing but matter to work with,and there can be no acknowledgement of laws of nature. If there are no laws of nature,where is the credibility of scientific theories?

The methods of scientific inquiry do not constitute the whole of science,just as the methods of modern logic do not constitute the whole of reason. When conclusions are drawn from methods alone,the result is often methodical madness,as when randomness theories are used to explain the origins of life,in ignorance of the fact that life always has to do with spirit,which is incalcuable.

Reason must always be the guide. Now,when scientists would have us believe that irrational matter originates its own rational structures,or that non-life originates life,then they are going against reason,and no amount of scientific evidence will make these claims less absurd.
Rationality is a product of mind,and life is from an unknown quantity called spirit. And both mind and spirit are extrinsic to matter.

 

[itinerant1]

The principle point arising from this post is the misuse of the word “creationist”. I pray that no Catholic contesting evolution theory considers him or herself a “creationist”. Historically, it was a Catholic term which distinguished Catholics from followers of the Aristotelian belief in an eternal world.

*Reply: *This is so, in fact I pointed out in some previous post, the various meanings of the word *creationist. *However, when referring to the Aristotelian belief in the eternity of the world, one should not go so far as to assert that such a belief is not completely logical, or, that the eternity of the world itself is inconsistent with the idea that God created the world. Hence, St. Thomas Aquinas says God could have created the world in such a manner that the world has always existed. The only way we know that the world created by God has not always existed (as a sort of eternal creation) is through faith in the Revelation that has told us differently… Reason by itself cannot know that the world was actually created ex nihilo in time.

Evolutionists have used this “straw man” so effectively that arguments based on the most obvious empirical proof opposing evolution are dismissed or ridiculed. Any argument of substance advanced by Catholic scientists against evolution is simply side-stepped by introduction of the magic word “creationist”.

*Reply: *Do you have or have you posted somewhere your recommended links to any such an arguments “based on the most obvious empirical proof opposing evolution”, and to any “arguments of substance advanced by Catholic scientists against evolution”?

It is no longer thought necessary to conduct a discussion with opponents of evolution upon scientific facts; ridicule, sarcasm and ‘ad hominems’ is the standard fare.

*Reply: *There is some truth to this. Some people think that science is an objectively pursued and presented discipline. Actually, in practice, science can be very “politicized”. For example, the global warming issue has been politicized, and I think is has been done by parties on both sides of the fence, and each side accuses the other side of politicizing. I’m curious what those scientists who have evidence to support global warming, according to their operative model, will be saying about the final read on global temperature statistics for 2007. Reportedly, the numbers reveal that there was no increase in global temp during 2007. In fact there has been no increase in the last 10 years. It appears that golobal warming has stopped, either temporarily or pemanently. Will this situation be dealt with objectively?

This is not the place to explain why the Holy Father continues to follow the evolution line, other than to say being the only one shown him by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, he has little option.

*Reply: *I am not sure it is legitimate to characterize the papacy as being at the mercy of the PAS, or something similar. John Paul II and Benedict are not like some American presidents who are not very knowledgeable and must rely too much on what cabinet members say. John Paul II and Pope Benedict have brilliant minds, and they have minds of their own.

In any case, for myself the situation regarding the evidence for biological evolution appears to be not as strong as many scientists think it is, but neither is it as weak as many anti-evolutionists think it is. To characterize any anti-evolutionist’s argument as disproof for the existence of biological evolution as if any argument advanced to date has conclusively demonstrated the falsity of evolutionary theory, is to speak rather hyperbolically.

But the bottom line here is, if you have links to arguments you think demonstrate the falsity of evolutionary theory, I would be most interested in seeing them.

 

[wildleafblower]

These protests do not change the fact that Berthault’s Russian papers are of abysmal quality. They are quite incapable of being published in Western high-impact journals because of their complete lack of scientific rigour. Nor does Peter’s rhetoric change the fact that the broad conclusions that Berthault draws from his flume experiments are unwarranted. Peter’s reluctance or inability to understand the simple point that the observation that laminae can form rapidly under a narrow set of laboratory depositional conditions does not mean that sedimentation as a precursor to consolidation and diagenesis always, or even commonly, occurs rapidly.

Peter’s fundamentally flawed logic can be explained partly by his deep ignorance of science, and partly by his misuse of science as a propaganda and rhetorical tool to support his creationist programme rather than as a means of discovering truth. His protests against the term ‘creationist’ are risible. He is a creationist, Berthault is a creationist, and the Kolbe Center is a creationist pressure group.

In any case, Berthault’s hubris is rightly ignored by the professional geological community and the flaws in his fundamentally flawed and impotent argument have been thoroughly debunked:

evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm
noanswersingenesis.org.au/henke_steno.htm
noanswersingenesis.org.au/questions_berthault_k_henke.htm

Alec
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm
Peter Wilders;3242090:

I witnessed another instance on this thread where peer-reviewed experimental evidence published by the Russian Academy of Sciences was dismissed (without any counter-evidence), not on scientific grounds but on the suggested poor quality of the source. Such arrogance (the accurate word use by Wolseley) is difficult to parallel, yet produced no protests from other interested parties claiming scientific training.

It’s always great to see Catholic.com’s most valuable and dedicated in-house scientist produce a monster wave. Thanks Alec. You Jesuit trained teacher. This reminds me of “café scientifique” There are many of them around the world. It would be awesome if Catholic.com had the first Science Café in the NET.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Broad Foundation recently gave $60 million to focus on K-12 education. Bill Gates wrote an article about education that I thought was extremely informative:
forbes.com/2008/01/22/solutions-education-gates-oped-cx_bga_0123gates.html

Bill Gates

Chairman, Microsoft.

www.forbes.com

Shameful though it is to say, this grotesque uncharitable situation, continues under the aegis of organisations within the Catholic Church, giving even further encouragement to the uninformed evolutionary zealots to refuse the possibility of the truth rather than let it menace their pre-conceived ideas. Peter

Peter, I’m a Catholic woman that supports evolution here on a Catholic website. It’s a charitable organization. You might try to understand the **truth about science ** by acknowledging Pope John Paul II statement “Science is Truth” and by reading the Compendium OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH****Part One, The Profession of Faith, Section One *
“I believe” – “We believe”.

1. Why is there no contradiction between faith and science?

159 *Though faith is above reason, there can never be a contradiction between faith and science because both originate in God. It is God himself who gives to us the light both of reason and of faith.

“I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe.” (Saint Augustine)*

Looks like God gave Alec the science and me the faith. *

 

[reggieM]

Looks like God gave Alec the science and me the faith.

Looks like you’re quite happy about that. So he’s an atheist – big deal. Just as long as you’re a Catholic, that’s all that matters apparently.

Guy Berthault’s response to Kevin Henke’s internet article: Berthault’s Stratigraphy

theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/berthaul/berthaul.html

 

[wildleafblower]

Looks like you’re quite happy about that. So he’s an atheist – big deal. Just as long as you’re a Catholic, that’s all that matters apparently.

Guy Berthault’s response to Kevin Henke’s internet article: Berthault’s Stratigraphy

theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/berthaul/berthaul.html

YES I am happy but not about your link Guy Berthault has been debunked over and over and over and over again on other topics. I’ll let Alec, Tim, and Phil deal with you.

I’m thinking about asking Gates to donate some funds to Catholic.Com so they could start a Science Cafe for kids K-12 that is if Catholic.Com would be interested. Of course, I’d be more than glad to help out in any way I could.

FYI, you can skinny dip into my older posts to other topics and find out about baptised Catholics such as Alec who studied in a Jesuit school. I’ve posted it more then twice… Also, I have friends who were married in a Catholic Church both Catholics and one didn’t believe in God. It happens but you aren’t expelled from the church for it.

 

[edwest2]

To my fellow Catholics-

Evolution is not more important than Catholic teaching. The phrase “Science is truth.” is meaningless unless one reads John Paul II’s actual words. The Church renders judgement about science all of the time:

From Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 64:

Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge” (“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution” 1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any trult causal role in the development of life in the universe."

God bless,
Ed