Ignorance and evolution

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian earlier asks for some evidence:
He said it’s not true if it denies God’s role. But feel free to show us where in the Modern Synthesis (neo-Darwinian theory) it says that God wasn’t involved.

(later)
I see no one is going to step up and show us any evidence. For obvious reasons.

 

[reggieM]

You’ll be pleased to know that evolutionary theory doesn’t deny God’s role in anything.

Evolutionary theory denies God’s role in the creation of the universe as well as in the creation of life and of human beings.

This is what the Cardinal and the Pope declared, clearly.

I believe you’re starting to accept what I’ve taught you. That’s a very good start, although in your above comment you’re wrong. Perhaps you’re a bit confused.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Evolutionary theory denies God’s role in the creation of the universe as well as in the creation of life and of human beings.

I asked for some evidence. I note that you again declined to show us any. What a surprise.

This is what the Cardinal and the Pope declared, clearly.

No. They said any theory that denies God’s role is wrong. Your job is now to find some thing in the modern synthesis that denies God. Since you’ve repeatedly declined to show us, the answer is obvious.

 

[reggieM]

I see no one is going to step up and show us any evidence. For obvious reasons.

The evidence is so abundant that nobody wants to bother to show it to you because they know you’re incapable of accepting it.

Apparently, you think Cardinal Schonborn’s concerns do not tie to anything real – he’s just proposing an imaginary world where Darwinists deny God’s involvement.

This is sophistry. I will say that atheists are more honest. They say quite clearly that evolution is an important support for atheism since is removes the need for God’s involvement in the universe.

I think the reason that people don’t bother responding to (or even reading) your posts is indeed, the “obvious reasons” as I see it.

 

[reggieM]

[The Pope and the Cardinal] said any theory that denies God’s role is wrong…

Yes, they did. I will admit that you got that correct. Good job.

Your job is now to find some thing in the modern synthesis that denies God.

Well, I’ll just turn it back to the Pope and the Cardinal, since they were the ones who said it.

Dear Pope and Cardinal, you claimed that any theory that denies God is wrong. Why did you say that? Has there ever been any evolutionary theory that denied God?

If not, then you’re talking about something that doesn’t exist and never existed. In other words, you’re wasting time talking about theories that don’t exist.

Barbarian thinks that the Pope is talking about a fantasy theory that has no evidence of support.

 

[anthony022071]

anthony022071;3214643:

I suggest that you travel on down to the nearest science lab you can find and start telling them immediately. Apparently they don’t know this yet. I am as usual amazed at the arrogance to disclaim the mental abilities of millions of people. Your credentials please?

My credential is I know how to reason.
The theory of evolution suggests that life forms evolved through chance and necessity,that mankind metamorphosized from irrational animals through chance and necessity. But irrationally does not beget rationality. Irrational matter does not organize itself into moving patterns or laws of nature which make life sustainable,and creatures which are inherently irrational don’t gain rationality over the centuries. Irrational creatures may gain in
adaptability and cunning,but that is not a gain in rational thought.
The idea that life forms evolved out of chaos,chance,or necessity is itself an irrational idea. The natural tendency of irrational matter and a chaotic environment is toward continued irrationality and chaos. The theory of evolution discounts the necessity of an intelligent being which creates,orders,and directs nature.
So all that is left is a literal-minded interpretation of scraps of bones and fossils pieced together into a modern myth.

 

[anthony022071]

I asked for some evidence. I note that you again declined to show us any. What a surprise.

Where is the evidence that the theory of evolution does include God’s role in creation? The god that lies behind the theory of evolution is Chaos,Chance,Necessity.

 

[freesoulhope]

removes the need for God’s involvement in the universe…

Notice the word “in”

Such is the atitude of those who take life for granted, and believe that all of reality can be explain by one simple equation. Evolution is simply a process by which certain “aspects” of reality arise; It does not explain reality as a whole; and niether does it wholly explain the “potentialities” which exist within nature—without those potentialites, evolution would not occur.
To think that human beings could ever trully comprehend everything in terms of Science, is quite simply a naturalistic fantasy, and an irresponsible one at that.

Evolution does not show evidence for or against the existence of God. Evolution provides a superficial shallow excuse to disbelieve; nothing more.

 

[Mersenne]

Irrational matter does not organize itself into moving patterns.

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

 

[SoCalRC]

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

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

You, on the other hand, seem to not be worried about just a creator, but something that strikes you as ‘orderly’. Why should we assume that God is so constrained? 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?

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.

 

[itinerant1]

“Species” is the only taxononic ranking that has an objective existence.

This may or may not be so in regard to Darwin’s theory. He often doubts the possiblity of distinguishing varieties or races from species. Species are viewed as well-marked varieties. This may present a problem, one which depends on whether Darwin imposed a taxonomic scheme on flora and fauna as (1) an artificial device for the sake of convenience, or whether his class distinctions are intended to represent (2) actual groupings that differ in kind.

Option #2 is not consistent with his principle of phylogenetic continuity. Option #1 is tantamount to denying the actual existence of species. Darwin’s solution is one that does not explicitly deny the reality of species. If he did, it would preclude him from formulating a theory of origins. Instead, Darwin asserted that living species are naturally existing groups that only “appear” to differ in kind.

Post-Darwinian theorists, have introduced a change in Darwinism in this regard, by maintaining that there are real differences in kind, but that these differences are “superficial” (as opposed to a difference in kind that is radical).

My earlier intention was to discuss the problematic nature of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian notions of species from a philosophical perspective. However, I just realized that there are certain aspects to the issue that require much more thought on my part. So, my spiel will have to wait for another time.

For now, I’ll just mention one area of critical importance that is easy to describe briefly. If an evolutionary theory maintains that differences in kind are only *apparent, *or that they are superficial, it will result in misunderstanding the nature of and relationship between organisms.

For instance, we know that man is a “rational animal” because he possesses a spiritual soul (of course, the soul is not within the province of the natural sciences to study) that enables him to think conceptually, make free choices, etc. Man is a clear example of an animal whose difference in kind from his closest relative in the animal kingdom is a radical difference in kind. He possesses a characteristic not possessed by other related species.

An evolutionist working from a notion of species that is inadequate will incorrectly classify man. He will not understand homo sapien as differing radically in kind from other animals. Man’s characteristics, such as his cognitive abilities will be seen as differing in degree only from lower animals. Conceptual or abstract thinking will not be properly understood as being radically different in kind from the perceptual cognitive abilities of lower animals such as chimps, dolphins, and politicians.

Darwin’s principle of phylogenetic continuity requires him, if he is to be consistent with this principle, to classify man as strictly an animal, one whose cognitive abilites are to be explained exclusively in terms of physical processes. For Darwin, man’s conciousness, is merely an epi-phenomemon.

This should give you an idea of the kind of issues I had in mind. I might say they are the kind of issues that are radically important, not just apparently or superfically important.

itinerant1 :tiphat:

 

[itinerant1]

Where is the evidence that the theory of evolution does include God’s role in creation? The god that lies behind the theory of evolution is Chaos,Chance,Necessity.

As a supporter of evolution, I would like to offer my unrequested (name removed by moderator)ut. An evolutionary theory that is a scientific theory, i.e. biological evolution, cannot, as science, say anything about God. If an evolutionist says that God created the world, or that evolution is part of God’s plan, then he is not speaking as a scientist. He is speaking as a man, or as philosopher. By the same token, if a scientist says God does not exist, he speak not as a scientist.

Natural being, that can be measured, weighed, viewed, and so on, is the proper object of study for the natural sciences. It is not within the scope, province, and competency of science to say anything at all about God.

If a theory of evolution says God does or does not exist, then the theory is not strictly a scientific theory. It has incorporated philosophical or theological elements, which is okay, but it goes beyond science.

The origin of man cannot be completely explained by evolution. We know this because man has a spiritual soul, and God creates each soul individually.

A complete description, as is humanly possible, of man’s origin, can only be made by taking into account what science, philosophy, and theology have to say. Each of these disciplines have their own province of study and way of knowing reality.

Now, if an evolutionists says he is giving, or in principle can give a complete account of man’s origin, then he is not being strictly scientific. He has made philosophical assumptions about the nature of man and the universe. That is, he has assumed that all reality is physical. This is called philosophical materialism. This philosophical assumption will determine how the scientist interprets his scientific findings and formulates his theory.

When philosophical materialism creeps into science, especially the science of evolution, then the theory implicitly denies the existence of God. This seems to be the case with Charles Darwin’s *Descent of Man. *The theory is not pure science. It has been corrupted by philosophical materialism. Many evolutionists will take exception to what I am saying, but I care not.

Of course, one can always extract out what is scientific in Darwin’s writings and discard the rest.

In regard, to cosmic evolution, Hawking has his own version of the Big Bang, which he says leaves no room for God. In saying this, Hawking is not speaking as a scientist. Furthermore, I suspect that if his theory is as he describes it, then in the final analysis, the theory will be seen as unintelligible. The End.

itinerant1 :tiphat:

 

[itinerant1]

I am re-posting this link for…for…'cause…uh…just to stir things up some more. lol

Pope Benedict called the Evolution v. Creation debate "an absurdity"

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the Pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.” (Right On! Papa)

(Continue reading this article)

itinerant1 :tiphat:

 

[The_Barbarian]

This may or may not be so in regard to Darwin’s theory. He often doubts the possiblity of distinguishing varieties or races from species. Species are viewed as well-marked varieties.

If species evolve, then this is a normal and expected phenomenon. Indeed, if all organisms survive indefinitely, we have no species at all, just a continuum, like ring species.

This may present a problem, one which depends on whether Darwin imposed a taxonomic scheme on flora and fauna as (1) an artificial device for the sake of convenience, or whether his class distinctions are intended to represent (2) actual groupings that differ in kind.

The taxonomic scheme was that of Linneaus, who did not do it for evolutionary theory. “Kind” is not a scientific term, and can mean any of a number of things.

Option #2 is not consistent with his principle of phylogenetic continuity. Option #1 is tantamount to denying the actual existence of species. Darwin’s solution is one that does not explicitly deny the reality of species. If he did, it would preclude him from formulating a theory of origins. Instead, Darwin asserted that living species are naturally existing groups that only “appear” to differ in kind.

Post-Darwinian theorists, have introduced a change in Darwinism in this regard, by maintaining that there are real differences in kind, but that these differences are “superficial” (as opposed to a difference in kind that is radical).

In that sense, all living things on earth are a “kind”, but of course extinction of intermediates produces species that are reproductively isolated from other organisms and therefore are objectively species.

My earlier intention was to discuss the problematic nature of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian notions of species from a philosophical perspective. However, I just realized that there are certain aspects to the issue that require much more thought on my part.

Sounds like an interesting program. I’ll be waiting to hear about it.

For now, I’ll just mention one area of critical importance that is easy to describe briefly. If an evolutionary theory maintains that differences in kind are only apparent, or that they are superficial, it will result in misunderstanding the nature of and relationship between organisms.

For species, at least, they are considered to be real, but with intermediates possible during speciation events.

For instance, we know that man is a “rational animal” because he possesses a spiritual soul (of course, the soul is not within the province of the natural sciences to study) that enables him to think conceptually, make free choices, etc. Man is a clear example of an animal whose difference in kind from his closest relative in the animal kingdom is a radical difference in kind. He possesses a characteristic not possessed by other related species.

That’s the troubling thing. We see in apes, glimmerings of understanding of fairness, an ability to infer mental states in others, and so on. In some ways, their mental abilities exceed ours (short term memory, for example). Those that have learned to sign, express moral ideas. It would be interesting, and a little frightening, to learn what more human-like animals were like in this respect.

An evolutionist working from a notion of species that is inadequate will incorrectly classify man. He will not understand homo sapien as differing radically in kind from other animals. Man’s characteristics, such as his cognitive abilities will be seen as differing in degree only from lower animals. Conceptual or abstract thinking will not be properly understood as being radically different in kind from the perceptual cognitive abilities of lower animals such as chimps, dolphins, and politicians.

If God created these abilities by evolution, why is that so troubling? Would it be better if He just poofed them into existence? If so, why?

Darwin’s principle of phylogenetic continuity requires him, if he is to be consistent with this principle, to classify man as strictly an animal, one whose cognitive abilites are to be explained exclusively in terms of physical processes.

For apes at least we can’t explain them exclusively in physical processes. They have minds.

For Darwin, man’s conciousness, is merely an epi-phenomemon.

I don’t think he ever said so. And man’s consciousness, if it is an epiphenomenon is surely not a mere epiphenomenon; it also involves (in ways we don’t understand) an immortal soul.

This should give you an idea of the kind of issues I had in mind. I might say they are the kind of issues that are radically important, not just apparently or superfically important.

Interesting stuff. There’s a good deal about this available in both the scientific literature and in philosophy. Let us know what you find.

 

[PhilVaz]

reggie << Evolutionary theory denies God’s role in the creation of the universe as well as in the creation of life and of human beings. >>

Evolutionary theory says nothing about God’s role.
Atomic theory says nothing about God’s role.
Plate tectonic theory says nothing about God’s role.
Relativity theory says nothing about God’s role.

Biology, geology, genetics, paleontology, astronomy, and physics say nothing about God’s role.

Catechism again:

1. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers…
2. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin…

anthony << Where is the evidence that the theory of evolution does include God’s role in creation? The god that lies behind the theory of evolution is Chaos, Chance, Necessity. >>

The theory of evolution does not include nor does it exclude God’s role in creation.
Atomic theory does not include nor does it exclude God’s role in creation.
Plate tectonic theory does not include nor does it exclude God’s role in creation.
Relativity theory does not include nor does it exclude God’s role in creation.

I’ve quoted it before, time to quote it again:

“The doctrine of creation really says nothing about ‘How’ God creates. It does not provide a basis for a testable theory of the mechanism of change. If it does not address this issue, then it does not contribute anything to a specifically scientific description of the history of life. I believe that all of creation is designed by God and has its being in God, but that does not give me any insights into the processes by which God brought that creation into existence. That is the role of scientific investigation, a vocation in which I find great excitement and fulfillment…It is the continuing success of scientific research to resolve previous questions about the nature and history of the physical universe, and to raise new and more penetrating ones, that drives the work of individual scientists. For the theist this simply affirms that, in creating and preserving the universe, God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, and given us as bearers of the divine image the capability to perceive that order.” (Keith Miller, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation [Eerdmans, 2003], pages 13,14)

Creation, and God’s role in that, is supported by The God Theory not by scientific theories of biology, geology, genetics, astronomy or physics.

The God Theory has a lot of reasonable philosophical arguments behind it. A major proponent of The God Theory is William Lane Craig and I recommend his debates to you, now that I’ve recently added more of them. All of his opponents are completely wiped out, with rare exceptions.

Phil P

 

[Orogeny]

I am re-posting this link for…for…'cause…uh…just to stir things up some more. lol

Pope Benedict called the Evolution v. Creation debate "an absurdity"

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the Pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.” (Right On! Papa)

(Continue reading this article)

itinerant1 :tiphat:

I love this Pope!! He keeps affirming exactly what I believe!

Peace

Tim

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I asked for some evidence. I note that you again declined to show us any. What a surprise.

Where is the evidence that the theory of evolution does include God’s role in creation?

Same place as the evidence that physics includes God’s role in creation. Not anywhere. As the Pope says, that is not the function of science.

The god that lies behind the theory of evolution is Chaos,Chance,Necessity.

The God that lies behind evolution, and all of nature, is the God of Abraham, our Lord.

We all noticed, BTW, that you don’t have any evidence, either.

 

[Peter_Wilders]

Philvaz writes

Evolutionary theory says nothing about God’s role.
Atomic theory says nothing about God’s role.
Plate tectonic theory says nothing about God’s role.
Relativity theory says nothing about God’s role.

Biology, geology, genetics, paleontology, astronomy, and physics say nothing about God’s role.

But where these disciplines attempt to explain the origin of things they go too far. They are limited to explaining what has already been created. This limitation is underpinned by the ‘de fide’ definition that God was creator:

…of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the
corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body (D.428). Lateran IV - 1215

Tradition, the Church Fathers, states that the period of creation was not longer than six days nor less than an instant.

One must, therefore, agree that all things were created directly by God at the beginning, ‘ex nihilo’ in their full substance (added by Vatican 1 canon 5 in 1879). Within these constraints there is no lattitude for macro-evolution.

Peter

 

[The_Barbarian]

But where these disciplines attempt to explain the origin of things they go too far.

No. If they could explain the origin of creation, that would be too far. If they explain, for example, the origin of the Cascade Mountains or of cats, that is proper and the Church recognizes this fact.

They are limited to explaining what has already been created.

That’s what evolutionary theory, for example, does. All science is like that.

Tradition, the Church Fathers, states that the period of creation was not longer than six days nor less than an instant.

Creation if the universe may have been instantaneous, but creation goes on for a much longer time than six days. You accept that you are a creature of God, do you not?

One must, therefore, agree that all things were created directly by God at the beginning, ‘ex nihilo’ in their full substance (added by Vatican 1 canon 5 in 1879).

This doesn’t seem to appear in any church documents. Can you give us a checkable soruce? Or did you just write that yourself?

Within these constraints there is no lattitude for macro-evolution.

Strange then, that the Pope thinks there is; he thinks common descent of all creatures is virtually certain. That goes far beyond macroevolution.

Please give us a checkable source for that quotation from Vatcian I.

 

[Orogeny]

Strange then, that the Pope thinks there is; he thinks common descent of all creatures is virtually certain. That goes far beyond macroevolution.

Please give us a checkable source for that quotation from Vatcian I.

You must understand, Barbarian, that Peter considers the current pope and the previous pope to be heretics. He has stated so in a round about way in previous threads.

Peace

Tim