Ignorance and evolution

[SpiritMeadow]

Stop the nonsense Tim. I can teach someone to cook or fish or build a garage. That tells them nothing about their dignity as a person or the origins of human beings. I can drop an item and prove gravity all day, every day. In a plane flying over the ocean, I can clearly see the curvature of the earth.

Evolution. No one was there billions or millions of years ago. No observations.
Ed

Is that your argument Ed? no one was there? good grief.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Apes, modern ape species are here becasue when enviromental factors divided the common Ape ancestor of humans, gorillas and chimps. The enviromental factors in which that animal lived changed for some populations and remained the same for the rest.
The ancestors of Gorillas and Chimps keep living in the rain forest and hardly evolved in millions of years.
The ancestors of human lived in the savannahs and have to adapt to that hostile enviroment for an ape, so they evolved, became bipedal, smarter, more meat eating. And over millions of years several human species walked the earth. We are the one left standing. Depending on who is taking modern humans appeared between 100,000 years ago 140,000.
And yes there is evidence that all humans living today have a common female and male ancestor. They just did not live at the same time.
In a broader view.
Mamals and Birds came from reptiles and we have reptiles around, repitles came from amphibians and we have amphibiams around, amphibiams came from fish and we still have fish around.
There is no evolutionary ladder, is more like a tree.

Thank you for elaborating. I’m not sure if you were intending to argue or not, but I do agree with everything you said - especially the part about the evidence for descent from a single set of parents and the part about how evolution branches out more like a tree than a ladder.

DWPC:

No, Ed, you cherry pick ambigiuties from Church materials to support a creationist-leaning view that’s outside the position of the Church. Cardinal Schoenborn addresses the ideology of evolution; its presentation by secularist as a closed secular answer, he does not challenge the science of evolution found in the fossil record or the laws of physics (also God’s creation) that verify that record. In an earlier post, you clearly express distaste at the idea that man’s lineage would include slime, yet Genesis tells us God fashioned Adam from the soil. So what, then, is soil?

Good point about the distinction between an atheistic ideology of “evolution” and the actual objective, empirical, biological theory of evolution.

Also, good point in your question at the end; I never thought about it like that, but I will have to remember the comparison whenever I encounter someone who expresses distaste with the idea that we evolved from “slime.”

edwest2:

God is not a part of secular textbook evolution.

Ideally, the theory of evolution should be taught in science classrooms from a completely scientific, empirical viewpoint. The existence of God cannot be proven false; since God’s existence is therefore not empirically falsifiable, it is not a matter of science. That is the test which determines whether a hypothesis is scientific - if it is empirically falsifiable, then the scientific method can be applied.

That doesn’t mean theology is not rational - it is. But science is just one possible applicaiton of reason; one field in which reason can be employed.

The existence and properties of God are matters of theology and philosophy; evolution is a matter of science. Both are rational, but evolution taught from either a theistic or atheistic point of view would extend beyond the realm of science.

The exclusion of God from discussions about evolutionary theory does not therefore automatically constitute atheistic ideology, only proper classification of the material being studied.

Now, if a science teacher in a public school were to claim that evolution removes the need for God, then and only then would he or she be guilty of inappropriately introducing unscientific ideology into a science classroom.

In a courtroom, the phrase “prove beyond a reasonable doubt” is used. As others, like Barbarian, have pointed out: “Science doesn’t prove things.” Based on that; no proof, no belief. I think that’s reasonable.

True; science doesn’t prove things. It observes the way our universe works, attempts to describe it and discover empirical causes.

Evolutionary theory constitutes ideas that are always under revision and further explanation and discovery, and it should therefore be taught as the theory it is. Theories - like evolution - are not completely finished and infallible, but they do have a great deal of evidence behind them and should be taken seriously.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Every time I read someone defending evolution as a “fact,” I’m reminded about the kind of thing I’m being asked to agree to.

Of course evolution isn’t a “fact.” A fact is only one thing; the theory of evolution has many components to it.

But I’ve never really run across someone - at least, not in validly scientific discussions or contexts - who dogmatically calls evolution a “fact.” I have heard it defended in rational ways as the scientific theory it is (of course, being in the category of “theory” does mean that it is generally regarded as true).

Perhaps we’ve just had different experiences about the matter.

Textbook evolution, secular textbook evolution, is atheistic. It fits into the current plan to degrade religious influence in every phase of public life.

You couldn’t be more wrong about that. Textbook evolution cannot be considered atheistic unless it actually says that evolution explains away the need for God.

If a text teaches the science behind evolution and doesn’t bring up God, then it is neither theistic nor atheistic, but rather properly scientific.

If it teaches that God is behind evolution, it is stepping outside the realm of science and is therefore not appropriate for a science classroom.

Likewise, if it teaches that evolution removes the need for God, then it is stepping outside the realm of science - in this case, by making a god out of science itself - and is therefore not appropriate for a science classroom.

Do you know where the term “separation of church and state” last appeared? In 1920s Communist Russia.

So-called “separation of church and state” - which I agree is misused and manipulated by secularists to try to abolish religion from the public square - is not the true reason or even a valid reason why science textbooks don’t mention God when they explain evolution. The real reason is the one I’ve tried to explain above - proper classification of fields of study. A science textbook and a science classroom should teach science, and whether or not God is behind evolution is not a matter for science to decide.

SpiritMeadow:

Proof has a very specific meaning in science. There is no absolute proof of gravity either.

Exactly. Even scientific laws cannot be regarded as true beyond a shadow of a doubt. They’re “laws” rather than “theories” not because they’re “higher” or “stronger” in some kind of hierarchy of scientific truths, but rather because they are qualitatively different - laws observe and explain the consistent ways in which the universe dependably behaves, whereas theories attempt to explain something. At least, that’s my understanding.

SpiritMeadow:

It is a theory. It is neither secular nor atheistic nor rooting for the Packers next Sunday… it’s a scientific statement about how life evolved over time.

Exactly. Evolutionary theory is (ought to be) science. When it is presented in a way that implies that God does not exist, it ceases to be science, just as it ceases to be science if we bring God into it.

It’s okay to bring God into it - in fact, I find it eminently logical - but when we do, we’re not talking science anymore and and the mention of the Creator in either a theistic or an atheistic sense does not therefore belong in science classrooms.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

As a Catholic, I cannot believe in atheistic evolution. That is what is being taught.

No, atheistic evolution is not what is being taught.

“Genes and environment,” what else is there? I do not worship the holy gene which made me because it did not.

I don’t think you seem to understand that science is a very limited, narrow, empirical field. It does not attempt to explain ultimate meaning or tell us who or what to worship. It does not claim that “genes and environment” are all that is out there; it simply has no jurisdiction beyond such things, that’s all.

I fully acknowledge that there are atheists who deify science and make it into their religion, people who speak of Science as if it is some new god which has done away with the old, Judeo-Christian one, just as the Olympian pantheon in Greek mythology did away with Cronus and Rheia (sp?).

But they are behaving in an utterly unscientific manner when they do that, and I do not believe that their ideology is being taught in classrooms, scientific journals, etc.

Orogeny:

But you are using an athiestic computer (no mention of God in any of the manuals or in the production process or the underlying science) to continue to spout your mantra that evolution is evil. Funny how we all pick our tools, eh?

Good point.

I can teach someone to cook or fish or build a garage. That tells them nothing about their dignity as a person or the origins of human beings.

Nor does evolution have anything to say about human dignity or humans’ theological origins.

That evolution does not mention or contain the ideas that God created us and that we are made in His image and likeness does not mean it negates them.

I can drop an item and prove gravity all day, every day.

Not true, technically. We can’t prove gravity any more than we can prove that rate x time = distance, because we can’t account for every possible instance in which we might use that equation.

All we can say, scientifically, is that in all circumstances common to us, it is a reliable formula, just as gravity is generally reliable. But science doesn’t technically “prove” anything, and the commonly accepted physics that we use here on earth doesn’t work in certain circumstances, such as on a huge scale (galaxies, etc.) or on a tiny scale (subatomic particles). The rules also change when an object is travelling near the speed of light.

So gravity cannot be proven any more than evolution can, but that doesn’t make it wrong or negate the evidence for it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

speciation does not prove macroevolution,

Speciation is macroevolution. Microevolution is change within a species.

Some fundamentalists have tried to redefine “macroevolution” to “whatever evolution takes so long that we have not directly obsserved it.”

For obvious reasons.

 

[Michael_G]

Speciation is macroevolution. Microevolution is change within a species.

Some fundamentalists have tried to redefine “macroevolution” to “whatever evolution takes so long that we have not directly obsserved it.”

For obvious reasons.

nope I beg to differ speciation is of the same kind, such as wolf is species separate from dogs in general but would be a type of dog, just as fox, or coyote would be of the same kind or a dog type, but different species. Macroevolution needs to show a natural order from reptile to bird or reptile to mammel, this cannot be shown to be true in nature, nor can it be done under lab conditions selected by man. As far as redefining macro evolution so as to take to long to observe, labatory would solve this probelem, but there is not any way to even make that one work. Therefore speciation is an example of microevolution not macroevolution. Another example that a lab should be able to demonstrate: Evolution teaches life from nonlife. Man cannot do this in the lab, why in the world should anyone believe that nature did it on its own. No oberservation, no demonstration no reproducability makes this outside of science but ones belief system and it is wrong to claim this as fact, wrong to teach as theory without the counterpoints. It is brainwashing. This is irrational. Even if Man could somehow make life from non life all it would prove then is that it took intelligence to create life, it still would not prove that nature did it on its own. There in lyes the rub or is it all rubbish???

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Some fundamentalists have tried to redefine “macroevolution” to “whatever evolution takes so long that we have not directly obsserved it.”

For obvious reasons.

nope I beg to differ speciation is of the same kind, such as wolf is species separate from dogs in general but would be a type of dog, just as fox, or coyote would be of the same kind or a dog type, but different species.

“Kind”, applied to living things, is a religious term, and can mean various things, including some contradictory ones. It has no meaning in science as a taxonomic term.

Macroevolution needs to show a natural order from reptile to bird or reptile to mammel, this cannot be shown to be true in nature, nor can it be done under lab conditions selected by man.

That’s a testable claim. What features are always found on birds, but never on reptiles?

As far as redefining macro evolution so as to take to long to observe, labatory would solve this probelem, but there is not any way to even make that one work.

You’re unhappy because we can’t compress millions of years into a short time? Creationists retreat to that objection as the facts close in on them.

Therefore speciation is an example of microevolution not macroevolution.

Sorry. If you want to talk science, you have to use terms as they are used in science.

Another example that a lab should be able to demonstrate: Evolution teaches life from nonlife.

Nope. Darwin made no claims about that. You’ve been badly misled on that one. He merely suggested that God created the first living things.

Man cannot do this in the lab, why in the world should anyone believe that nature did it on its own.

If you accept Genesis, you would recognize that the earth brought forth living things. But science can’t yet show that to be true.

No oberservation, no demonstration no reproducability makes this outside of science but ones belief system and it is wrong to claim this as fact, wrong to teach as theory without the counterpoints. It is brainwashing. This is irrational.

To be more precise, it’s a strawman. It’s not now, and never has been, part of evolutionary theory.

 

[SoCalRC]

I can drop an item and prove gravity all day, every day. In a plane flying over the ocean, I can clearly see the curvature of the earth.

But if you refused to accept gravity beyond what you could prove just by dropping items, you wouldn’t want to be in a plane over the ocean. Both inertial navigational systems and the GPS system have to account for relativity.

But we know that that relativity is either incomplete, or in error. Much of what you take for granted in the world around you relies on scientific theories, even one’s which we already know are not fundemental truth.

Theories are just that, a way of explaining the world as it measurably is. To be valid, it also must be able to predict outcomes. There is nothing to stop you from denying yourself a broader glimpse into the majesty of God’s creation. I like getting a tantalizing glimpse of a ‘hot jupiter’, orbiting a star which is staggeringly distant (spaceflightnow.com/news/n0301/07planet/)

Or glimpsing part of our planet’s beautiful and awe inspiring past (fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianExplosion.htm)).

But you can certainly slap your head and shout ‘No No No!’. Ignorance may be poor citizenship, but it is a constitutional right.

However, assigning denial of the world as it is as a requirement of Catholicism is not an option. We have an Apostolic Church with the Gift of Authority. Not only has the rightful successor to Peter (two actually) accepted evolution as a probable truth, no Pope has ever asserted that belief in theories of evolution is in any way immoral or in conflict to Church doctrine (in fact, the Church has stated otherwise from almost the beginning).

The Pope is the ultimate moral authority on the matter and there is no conflict. The Church permits you to freely choose ingnorance, but not to contradict the moral or doctrinal authority of the Pope. At best that is heresy and schism, at worst anathema (see the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, First Vatican Council).

Two other sidenotes: We actually don’t have as good a theory to explain and predict gravity as we have for modern genetics. If you can ‘prove it all day long’, you could be awarded a Nobel Prize.

And, genetics, an enormous body of evidence in favor of modern evolutionary theory, was principally the result of a Central European Monk’s work (Gregor Mendel).

 

[Michael_G]

simple darwinism is no longer taught, look at the biology text books evolution crosses all scientific fields and is must to eliminate the necessity of a creator, so we have the big bang producing all the planents and stars, chemical evolution becomes necessary in this process so as to produce by some unknown natural means all the chemical of the periodic table from hydrogen up the ladder, and to take all of the chemicals and have life evolve from non life. Non of it observable, testable, demonstrateable. as stated before if man cannot mix the chemical of life and produce a lifeform from non life in a testtube then this all is a belief system outside of real science since it is non observable, based on speculations and extrapolations which cannot be proved.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Another example that a lab should be able to demonstrate: Evolution teaches life from nonlife.

Barbarian observes:
Nope. Darwin made no claims about that. You’ve been badly misled on that one. He merely suggested that God created the first living things.

simple darwinism is no longer taught,

True. The modern synthesis includes genetics, neutralist theories, and so on.

look at the biology text books evolution crosses all scientific fields and is must to eliminate the necessity of a creator,

I review science textbooks, and I have never seen one that did that. Which textbooks do you have in mind? Name and publisher.

so we have the big bang producing all the planents and stars, chemical evolution becomes necessary in this process so as to produce by some unknown natural means all the chemical of the periodic table from hydrogen up the ladder

We know how that happens. Sometimes we even get to see it happen. The heavy elements are produced in the explosions of supernovae.

Non of it observable, testable, demonstrateable.

Just a few years ago, we had one go off in our galaxy. Every few hundred years.

as stated before if man cannot mix the chemical of life and produce a lifeform from non life in a testtube then this all is a belief system outside of real science since it is non observable, based on speculations and extrapolations which cannot be proved.

If you believe Genesis, which says that the earth brought forth living things, it is true. But it’s still not quite settled as a scientific fact.

 

[steveandersen]

speciation does not prove macroevolution, it only demonstrates at best micro evolution as in variation within kind. Yet all of biology uses micro evolution as their support for macroevolution, believing that micro can be extrapolated into macroevolution, I will maintain that is not necessarily so.

The micro/macro split is a fallacy

How big can a “micro” get?
How small can a “macro” be?

As I’ve said before you can’t be just a little bit evolved
Either variation occurs in isolated populations over time or it doesn’t (and we see it all the time so we know it does)

And unless you can suggest a mechanism that magically stops variations from occurring at the micro/macro boundary then you’re stuck with it
the varriations will just keep on accumulating

You cannot demonstrate macro, you cannot even make it happen in a lab under control circumstances,

As I posted above there have been observed instances of speciation
Both in the field and in the lab

and yet all people are suppose to believe that nature can do what we cannot demonstrate as a reality there in lies the rub.

We don’t “believe” it
We know it

And yes there are probably many things that “nature” can do that we can’t

God has had a several billion-year head start after all

or is it rubbish???

Nope
Definitely not rubbish

 

[sodak]

We can’t prove gravity any more than we can prove that rate x time = distance, because we can’t account for every possible instance in which we might use that equation.

All we can say, scientifically, is that in all circumstances common to us, it is a reliable formula, just as gravity is generally reliable. But science doesn’t technically “prove” anything, and the commonly accepted physics that we use here on earth doesn’t work in certain circumstances, such as on a huge scale (galaxies, etc.) or on a tiny scale (subatomic particles). The rules also change when an object is travelling near the speed of light.

So gravity cannot be proven any more than evolution can, but that doesn’t make it wrong or negate the evidence for it.

This is incorrect. We have a thread on gravity, and nobody chose to try and refute me. Science proves theorums. When inconsistencies show up, the theorums are generally seen to be a specific case of a more general theorum, and then our knowledge increases.

The rules don’t change. See my posts on the gravity thread.

 

[edwest2]

But if you refused to accept gravity beyond what you could prove just by dropping items, you wouldn’t want to be in a plane over the ocean. Both inertial navigational systems and the GPS system have to account for relativity.

But we know that that relativity is either incomplete, or in error. Much of what you take for granted in the world around you relies on scientific theories, even one’s which we already know are not fundemental truth.

Theories are just that, a way of explaining the world as it measurably is. To be valid, it also must be able to predict outcomes. There is nothing to stop you from denying yourself a broader glimpse into the majesty of God’s creation. I like getting a tantalizing glimpse of a ‘hot jupiter’, orbiting a star which is staggeringly distant (spaceflightnow.com/news/n0301/07planet/)

Or glimpsing part of our planet’s beautiful and awe inspiring past (fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianExplosion.htm)).

But you can certainly slap your head and shout ‘No No No!’. Ignorance may be poor citizenship, but it is a constitutional right.

However, assigning denial of the world as it is as a requirement of Catholicism is not an option. We have an Apostolic Church with the Gift of Authority. Not only has the rightful successor to Peter (two actually) accepted evolution as a probable truth, no Pope has ever asserted that belief in theories of evolution is in any way immoral or in conflict to Church doctrine (in fact, the Church has stated otherwise from almost the beginning).

The Pope is the ultimate moral authority on the matter and there is no conflict. The Church permits you to freely choose ingnorance, but not to contradict the moral or doctrinal authority of the Pope. At best that is heresy and schism, at worst anathema (see the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, First Vatican Council).

Two other sidenotes: We actually don’t have as good a theory to explain and predict gravity as we have for modern genetics. If you can ‘prove it all day long’, you could be awarded a Nobel Prize.

And, genetics, an enormous body of evidence in favor of modern evolutionary theory, was principally the result of a Central European Monk’s work (Gregor Mendel).

The same old nonsense. Here is the Church’s position which is not what evolutionists are stating:

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 theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers folllowing 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 truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.

Get it right, please. Catholics are not allowed to believe in an evolutionary theory, including neo-Darwinism, that explicitly excludes God’s role.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

Get it right, please. Catholics are not allowed to believe in an evolutionary theory, including neo-Darwinism, that explicitly excludes God’s role.

I know this is a waste of time because you don’t believe in giving references, but could you please give us the textbook that explicitly excludes God? Title, date and publisher, please.

Also, if it’s not too much trouble for you Ed, please show us where SoCalRC claimed that God had nothing to do with evolution.

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

Hi Tim,

Just visit the Library at this site and you’ll learn that Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution. I can’t think of what else the Church might be referring to other than the secular, public school textbooks already in existence.

Read the last line in the section titled “The Catholic Position.”
catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

Hi Tim,

Just visit the Library at this site and you’ll learn that Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution. I can’t think of what else the Church might be referring to other than the secular, public school textbooks already in existence.

Read the last line in the section titled “The Catholic Position.”
catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp

God bless,
Ed

So, you can’t or won’t give me a reference to an actual textbook. I figured as much. You need to lose that line of false claims, Ed. It isn’t Christian to knowingly spread false information.

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

“false information” ?

Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution. I gave you the reference to show that statement is true. Unless the Church is referring to some bizarre, atheists only form of evolution that is used only by atheists, then it is referring to the current, secular, public school version of evolution being taught.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

“false information” ?

Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution. I gave you the reference to show that statement is true. Unless the Church is referring to some bizarre, atheists only form of evolution that is used only by atheists, then it is referring to the current, secular, public school version of evolution being taught.

Then give me a book where that is taught. You keep refering to “athiestic” evolution, so surely there is a book somewhere that actually teaches what you claim. If not, you need to provide some other evidence that your claim is not false. If you can’t, you are spreading false information. Got it?

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

No, I don’t get it. Sorry.

The point is, what is being taught in schools right now does not assign to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life. True statement.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

No, I don’t get it. Sorry.

The point is, what is being taught in schools right now does not assign to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life. True statement.

So, your earlier statements that you don’t want God taught in science class was false?

Peace

Tim