In 'Design' vs. Darwinism, Darwin Wins Point in Rome

[MarkR]

Orogeny:

I love how this keeps being stated as a fact. Maybe you should inform the scientific community that evolution is in deep trouble since they use it on a daily basis. A frenchman quit? That is a shocker. What was the guy’s name and when did he quit?I thought you said that they were scientists. If they were, they wouldn’t be confused by the evolution of the eye. Regarding the statement about bones, I have no idea what you are refering to.

Peace

Tim

No, actually Evolution’s proponents remain baffled and alarmed by the eye. They realize that the eye evolving in small morphologic, Darwinian steps would render the creature blind. Any change, no matter how remote in any retina would. The staunch Darwinist Garrett Hardin was haunted by it and wrote-“That damned eye!” to a fellow travelor. Then he stopped thinking about it. They now ignore it as they do 10,000 other Darwinian anomalies. Another anomaly is that modern man’s brain is far too big and complex for man’s evolutionary needs…hmm

The fact that there are radically different schools of Evolutionary thought shows that it is not settled fact. Things like the eye and many others led Gould (the St. Paul of modern evolution) to propose an Evolution “explosion”, i.e. instant change! Many (almost all non-specialists never even heard of the theory)violently disagree. The only thing that they are agreed upon is that it must have happened somehow. There’s no such debate about Copernicus or the Theory of Relativity. Also, science is today highly specialized. A physicist for example may know no more about evolutionary theory than an astronomer…or the average man on the street. When you say “scientists believe”, many of their opinions are irrelevant or worse if their field does not have relevance.

There are far more anthropologists, biologists (the fields that apply) who disagree with Darwinism than is known or made public. In fact, molecular biology is turning against orthodox Darwinism in a big way.

By “bones” I meant a fossil record. There is none. Period. For any species. No proto lion, tiger, bear, bug, horse or man. Nothing. They draw elaborate, branching trees and say “If only we could find the proof, this is what the evolution of the chipmunk would look like” etc. The theory as it stands is like a map to a city. It tells you to take Rt. 4 and cross the bridge. Sounds logical…but the bridge is missing! So much for the map!

The Frenchman’s name escapes me (as most Frenchman’s names do), but it happened in the 80’s. I’ll try to find out and post it.

Again, I don’t know whether evolution took place or not. I DO know (and this is ID) that it could not have happened randomly if it did. All other hard sciences (and evolution is not a hard science) overwhelmingly point to intellgent design (Einstein again).

I’m frankly against ID being taught in schools because it can be mishandled/misused by fundamentalists in both camps. A Catholic is not put in the box of having to defend or refute Evolution. Evolutionists are and they’re not doing so honestly. They won’t allow the discussion and portray the opposition as Creationist wackos (thanks again Fundamentalists). They don’t make public that their own camp is in disarray. I do think, however that it should be taught as a theory and that the many problems with it should be pointed out. The onus is on both the Ceationists and the Darwinists.

 

[gelsbern]

St.BJLabre:

When the Bible says that there was no death before sin, it is speaking about death in a spiritual sense. Obviously, before sin entered the world there was no damnation (or “death”).

I haven’t posted for a long time but I saw this and found it surprising that no one else had responded.

The statement above by St. BJLabre is in total opposition to what the Church believes.

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church it clearly states that sin brought about death of the body.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a11.htm

1008 Death is a consequence of sin. The Church’s Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man’s sin.571 Even though man’s nature is mortal God had destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin.572** “Bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned”** is thus “the last enemy” of man left to be conquered.573

I just wanted to bring this to light and to correct an error I saw.

God Bless

 

[Nohome]

MarkR:

The fact that there are radically different schools of Evolutionary thought shows that it is not settled fact.

Hello? Since it is the THEORY of evolution it isn’t a settled fact. No sicentist worth their weight would state otherwise. Scientists are O.K. with this, but reactionary creationists can’t handle it. They want to call ID a theory, but they have no evidence, it is based purely on faith.

MarkR:

There’s no such debate about Copernicus or the Theory of Relativity.

Wrong my friend. The Theory of Relativity remains a theory. Much of it has been proven, but it isn’t totaly explained. Copernicus is a person, not a theory, so there is no debate, but much of what he studied would be classical physics today.

MarkR:

Also, science is today highly specialized. A physicist for example may know no more about evolutionary theory than an astronomer…or the average man on the street. When you say “scientists believe”, many of their opinions are irrelevant or worse if their field does not have relevance.

Wrong again. Every scientist takes core training in math and the basic sciences. They are way ahead of the man on the street. When we say “scientists believe”, we tend to refer to experts in their field.

MarkR:

There are far more anthropologists, biologists (the fields that apply) who disagree with Darwinism than is known or made public. In fact, molecular biology is turning against orthodox Darwinism in a big way.

Prove it. Don’t confuse Darwinian theory with evolution. The science has moved way past Darwin.

MarkR:

I DO know (and this is ID) that it could not have happened randomly if it did. All other hard sciences (and evolution is not a hard science) overwhelmingly point to intellgent design.

You can’t say you know this, you are relying on faith. All serious scientist dismiss ID as philosophy or religion.

Nohome

 

[Orogeny]

MarkR:

No, actually Evolution’s proponents remain baffled and alarmed by the eye.

Source please.

They realize that the eye evolving in small morphologic, Darwinian steps would render the creature blind. Any change, no matter how remote in any retina would.

I believe you are refering to irreducible complexity. Sorry, but that has been show, especially in the case of the eye, to be bunk.

The staunch Darwinist Garrett Hardin was haunted by it and wrote-“That damned eye!” to a fellow travelor.

This the same guy who was obsessed with population control? The same guy who said “There should not be the slightest communal concern when a woman elects to destroy the life of her thousandth-of-an-ounce embryo. But all society should rise up in alarm when it hears that a baby that is not wanted is about to be born.” (garretthardinsociety.org/info/quotes.html).

They now ignore it as they do 10,000 other Darwinian anomalies. Another anomaly is that modern man’s brain is far too big and complex for man’s evolutionary needs…hmm

You seem to be real good at making these claims. How about a reference to the “10,000 other Darwinian anomalies”?

The fact that there are radically different schools of Evolutionary thought shows that it is not settled fact. Things like the eye and many others led Gould (the St. Paul of modern evolution) to propose an Evolution “explosion”, i.e. instant change!

You could at least used the proper term - punctuated equilibrium. Gould, by the way, was a “staunch evolutionist”.

There are far more anthropologists, biologists (the fields that apply) who disagree with Darwinism than is known or made public.

What, five?

In fact, molecular biology is turning against orthodox Darwinism in a big way.

Yeah, right. Once again, can you give a reference to that? If molecular biology is turning against darwininan evolution, the journals should be full of peer-reviewed articles. One will suffice as a reference. I’ll wait while you look that up.

By “bones” I meant a fossil record. There is none. Period.

That is factually incorrect.

For any species. No proto lion, tiger, bear, bug, horse or man. Nothing.

That is factually incorrect.

They draw elaborate, branching trees and say “If only we could find the proof, this is what the evolution of the chipmunk would look like” etc.

That is factually incorrect.

The theory as it stands is like a map to a city. It tells you to take Rt. 4 and cross the bridge. Sounds logical…but the bridge is missing! So much for the map!

That is factually incorrect.

Again, I don’t know whether evolution took place or not. I DO know (and this is ID) that it could not have happened randomly if it did. All other hard sciences (and evolution is not a hard science) overwhelmingly point to intellgent design (Einstein again).

No science points to ID. ID has absolutely no evidence. ID has no research backing it up. ID is not science.

Evolutionists are and they’re not doing so honestly.

Yep. Telling the truth is typically considered dishonest.

They won’t allow the discussion and portray the opposition as Creationist wackos (thanks again Fundamentalists).

I will be charitable and not point out the irony of this sentence in light of your post. I will say this. If ID proponents can come up with any research and verifyable data, I will not call them kooks any more.

Peace

Tim

 

[St.BJLabre]

I haven’t posted for a long time but I saw this and found it surprising that no one else had responded.

The statement above by St. BJLabre is in total opposition to what the Church believes.

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church it clearly states that sin brought about death of the body.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a11.htm

Quote:
1008 Death is a consequence of sin. The Church’s Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man’s sin.571 Even though man’s nature is mortal God had destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin.572 “Bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned” is thus “the last enemy” of man left to be conquered.573

I just wanted to bring this to light and to correct an error I saw.

God Bless

Thank you for pointing out my error. Sometimes it is possible to promote heresy without knowing it. Anyway (and I am just theorizing here), the quote from the Catechism does say that human nature is mortal. Perhaps God infused in us immortality when he instilled the first soul. Who knows. The point I was trying to make is that Genesis should not be taken as history in the sense that a history textbook is history.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

St.BJLabre:

Thank you for pointing out my error. Sometimes it is possible to promote heresy without knowing it. Anyway (and I am just theorizing here), the quote from the Catechism does say that human nature is mortal. Perhaps God infused in us immortality when he instilled the first soul. Who knows. The point I was trying to make is that Genesis should not be taken as history in the sense that a history textbook is history.

Also I noticed that your comments could be read carefully in a way that aren’t necessarily in contradiction, since you did not dismiss the idea of the death of the body being introduced at the same point. Technically you might be wrong but I have also come to the conclusion that the real death that Adam “should” fear is a spiritual death, at least at the point there was mortal death as well. Actually I’m not sure there could have been spiritual death without mortal death, so I wonder if one is a condition of the other.

I agree with Genesis not being taken as literally, and this is what they are teaching our children now in Catholic high school. In general, on this topic when they are in science they are taught evolutionary theory. In religion they are taught creationism. This is one case where I think the Catholic kids are getting a better balance than public schools that preserves science as well as religion. In the public schools here we have very politically active fundamentalists who are insisting that evolution is anywhere from completely banned from mention in public school, to being taught with equal credibility in a religious version – and not in philosophy or humanities classes but science class – either straight creationism or its code name ID.

Alan

edit>> by “straight” creationism I mean interpreting Genesis literally to conclusions I hold to be absurd, and the movement of people who think this is just as much science as evolutionary theory.

 

[MarkR]

“That is factually incorrect” Lol and you ask me for sources!

Regarding classic, evolutionary theory, how’s this?–“The fossil record still proclaims it false, after more than a century of diligent search for gradual change. Paleontologists have documented virtually no cases of slow and steady transformation, foot by foot up the strata of a hillslope–not for horses, not for humans”- SJ Gould “Evolution:Explosion, Not Ascent” Hence his theory of “Explosion” (which doesn’t solve the problem btw because the fossil record would just be more tightly packed). Theory in search of fact.

As to the typical mindset among evolution’s zealots-“We are not so sure as to the modus operendi, but we may rest assured that the process has been in accordance with great natural laws, some of which are as yet unknown, perhaps unknowable”. R.S.Lull-“Organic Evolution”. and more recently Professor E.O. Wilson-calls evolution “The very core of scientific materialism” and “the best myth we will probably ever have”–“On Human Nature”.

It would be tedious to name the myriad (how’s that) and rapidly growing list of anomalies contained in the theory or the growing list of scientists, even among it’s proponents who find it greatly flawed. Try Stanley L. Jaki as a source for starters. That’s Father (like Copernicus) Stanley L. Jaki- recipient of the Lecompte du Nuy and Templeton prizes. For the molecular dilema try Darwin’s Black Box which is only the very tip of the iceburg (and good point! Why don’t you see the problems published in the NY Times, etc.??).

As to Nohome’s comments-Evolution taught as a theory?? Why do it’s accolytes get hysterical when it’s questioned? You’ve got to be kidding!

How does mathematics and general science training render their opinions on evolution any more valid? If anything, modern scientific specialization renders many scientists less capable of offering an opinion on anything outside of their field. They can’t see the forest for the trees. See Anthony Rizzi’s book “The Science Before Science”. Since the applied sciences have been divorced from Philosophy (the search for wisdom), many scientists are now in the position of knowing a great deal about a single room without knowing that it’s part of a Skyscraper or what a Skyscraper is for that matter. That’s why today’s willingness on the part of many to attribute wisdom in all areas of life to “Experts” is so alarming.

There is an overwhelming amount of hard scientific data that supports ID. That’s ID NOT Creationism and again I mention Einstein as ID’s poster boy. It’s proponents (a rapidly growing but hushed up number) come from all fields of science because (unlike Evolution) all fields of science have something to contribute.

Once again, my personal opinion is that evolution is plausible but not proven. Frankly, it’s becoming less plausible in it’s current form all the time…it’s going to have to “evolve”! Catholics are not put in the position of having to deny it as are Fundamentalists. Neither are they put in the position of being boxed in by it…as are other Fundamentalists.

On secularism in general for which Evolution is a sacrament try Tom Wolfe’s “Sorry, but Your Soul Just Died”…my friend.

Oh btw Orogeny, when I get a chance I’ll try to list names. There are many. I want to pick the most credible. Until then…do your own research!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

MarkR:

There is an overwhelming amount of hard scientific data that supports ID. That’s ID NOT Creationism and again I mention Einstein as ID’s poster boy. It’s proponents (a rapidly growing but hushed up number) come from all fields of science because (unlike Evolution) all fields of science have something to contribute.

Once again, my personal opinion is that evolution is plausible but not proven. Frankly, it’s becoming less plausible in it’s current form all the time…it’s going to have to “evolve”! Catholics are not put in the position of having to deny it as are Fundamentalists. Neither are they put in the position of being boxed in by it…as are other Fundamentalists.

Isn’t ID pretty much a statement that there is a personal and intelligent force behind everything we can perceive or measure?

How is it possible to prove with mathematics that there is a mysterious “personally directed” force? If I spin a coin three times and it comes up heads it’s a surprise. If it comes up heads 20 times in a row we expect the coin is biased. To me, that’s the ONLY kind of evidence (piquing our suspicions) that science is even capable of producing. Other than that I suppose one could point to Bigfoot or something as a cause of things we don’t understand.

By definition, if we believe something happens but we cannot measure it or duplicate the results in a lab (just like we can’t do this for evolution) then it is by faith that we believe it, not by science. If we can measure it with any instrument or analyze it with any calculation, then it is no longer faith.
Heb 11:1-3:

Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen. Because of it the ancients were well attested. By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God, so that what is visible came into being through the invisible.

How does this differ from ID theory? BY FAITH we believe that the universe was ordered by God. If we could do that by science, then we would not need this scripture. That is, unless the Bible was only speaking to those living in the world before the invention of Teachers’ Unions and Church/State separationists and their dangerous cousins – the fundies.

On secularism in general for which Evolution is a sacrament try Tom Wolfe’s “Sorry, but Your Soul Just Died”…my friend.

Evolution is a sacrament? I suppose it’s gotten to that point, but why it is that way I’ll speculate to myself a bit.

What I want to know is, how is it improve human dignity to believe that we were made from dirt without having gone through intermediate stages first? Also, was that dirt sterile or did it have many bacteria? Maybe we weren’t made from monkeys; we were made from a smelly bacteria-infested chunk of mud. There. Now I feel all more dignified and stuff.

Alan

 

[Orogeny]

“That is factually incorrect” Lol and you ask me for sources!

I don’t need a source to respond to such factually incorrect statemtents any more than I would if you had claimed the sun rises in the west.

Regarding classic, evolutionary theory, how’s this?–“The fossil record still proclaims it false, after more than a century of diligent search for gradual change. Paleontologists have documented virtually no cases of slow and steady transformation, foot by foot up the strata of a hillslope–not for horses, not for humans”- SJ Gould “Evolution:Explosion, Not Ascent” Hence his theory of “Explosion” (which doesn’t solve the problem btw because the fossil record would just be more tightly packed). Theory in search of fact.

You obviously can’t understand what Gould was talking about or you would not resort to quote mining.

As to the typical mindset among evolution’s zealots-“We are not so sure as to the modus operendi, but we may rest assured that the process has been in accordance with great natural laws, some of which are as yet unknown, perhaps unknowable”. R.S.Lull-“Organic Evolution”. and more recently Professor E.O. Wilson-calls evolution “The very core of scientific materialism” and “the best myth we will probably ever have”–“On Human Nature”.

I say once again, you don’t understand what is being written. One line quotes are a sure sign of an attempt to decieve regarding the original author’s context.

It would be tedious to name the myriad (how’s that) and rapidly growing list of anomalies contained in the theory or the growing list of scientists, even among it’s proponents who find it greatly flawed.

In other words, you can’t.

Try Stanley L. Jaki as a source for starters. That’s Father (like Copernicus) Stanley L. Jaki- recipient of the Lecompte du Nuy and Templeton prizes.

What does “like Copernicus” mean?

For the molecular dilema try Darwin’s Black Box which is only the very tip of the iceburg (and good point! Why don’t you see the problems published in the NY Times, etc.??).

Behe has been refuted.

If anything, modern scientific specialization renders many scientists less capable of offering an opinion on anything outside of their field. They can’t see the forest for the trees.

So why did you give Fr. Jaki as a reference on evolution? He is a physicist.

There is an overwhelming amount of hard scientific data that supports ID.

Since it’s overwhelming, why don’t you start with just the top 10, in your opinion, pieces of evidence for ID (NOT Creationism).

Once again, my personal opinion is that evolution is plausible but not proven.

OK, as has been asked of many different posters who have made this statement or one like it, please name one scientific theory that has been PROVEN.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

MarkRand:

more recently Professor E.O. Wilson-calls evolution “The very core of scientific materialism” and “the best myth we will probably ever have”–“On Human Nature”.

This is a great example of how quote mining is deceptive at best. Edward O. Wilson does not have a problem with evolution. In an article in the Harvard Magazine (November-December 2005 issue), Professor Wilson said this:

**Darwin lived thirteen more years **after writing this letter to Joseph Hooker, and he did manage to modify the theory of evolution by natural selection, expanding it in *The Descent of Man *(1871) to include human origins and in The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872) to address the evolution of instinct. The ensuing 130 years have seen an enormous growth of the Darwinian heritage. Joined with molecular and cellular biology, that accumulated knowledge is today a large part of modern biology. Its centrality justifies the famous remark made by the evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky in 1973 that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” In fact, nothing in science as a whole has been more firmly established by interwoven factual documentation, or more illuminating, than the universal occurrence of biological evolution. Further, few natural processes have been more convincingly explained than evolution by the theory of natural selection or, as it is popularly called, Darwinism.

emphasis added by me.

The rest of the article demolishes your attempt to cast doubt on evolution using quote mines. The article is here: harvardmagazine.com/on-line/110518.html

Peace

Tim

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I just spent some time at the web site of the Intelligent Design Network which seems focused mostly on the controversy in Kansas.

It has a lot of links and resources I didn’t read in detail, and even quit clicking when I kept getting links to adobe and word documents. They don’t seem to have a whole lot of original material, but the gist of it sounds like an interesting thing to teach children.

The best I can gather is ID tries to gets kids to recognize when something is designed rather than random. Perhaps like I was suggesting above, I got the impression they are saying there are forces beyond our comprehension that are clearly at work because things would not likely happen the way they do otherwise. (If that is substantially wrong, I stand to be corrected.)

This is really not any different than when I took an advanced mathematics course in statistics. There are tests of samples of populations that can give a confidence level that those populations (from which the samples were drawn) were, in fact, randomly created. In other words, are they really random, or are they pseudorandom, or for that matter, designed. A pattern will show up in either of the two latter cases, and I think this is what the ID people are saying. Sometimes patterns are obvious, and there are ways to detect patterns.

Gosh, some think that with all they’ve been through it’s a miracle they are alive? Is it a miracle, or did luck just go your way?

Consider, though, that “true” randomness often doesn’t look random. After all, every once in a while, a four handed poker table (5 cards to each) could be dealt all Royal Flushes. Chances are, it won’t happen too often. Now, if it does happen, the dealer had better be prepared to explain what’s going on, because nobody will believe they just saw THAT particular combination. Mathematically, if you buy a lottery ticket and have to pick 5 numbers between 1 and 50 you might just as well pick 1-2-3-4-5 as any other combination, which is equally likely. You say, “it’ll never be that. It’ll always be something like ‘12-25-28-34-55’ or something.” I reply, “OK, I’ll pick mine and you pick yours and we have exactly the same chance of winning.”

Perhaps, then, “ID” should be renamed “pattern recognition” or something that’s actually useful as opposed to wedging it in with the apparent result and maybe even intent to confuse the boundaries of religion, science, and philosophy. (note that we spent lots of money, sweat and blood to get those boundaries established. )

Alan

 

[jdnation]

St.BJLabre:

Genesis was written as literal history? OK. So your telling me that God literally walked around in the garden of Eden? Your telling me that Noah literally took 2 of every species onto the ark? Your telling me that the first sin was literally eating an apple? That people literally lived for hundreds and hundreds of years? That the earth is literally shaped like a dome with a giant flood gate holding back the water in the sky? That the creation of different languages was a punishment from God? That angels and humans were really fornicating?

Genesis was written as a historical narrative. This is confirmed by Hebrew scholars. God walked with Adan and Eve as it says, yes, how God ‘walks’ around with them I don’t know. Noah took two of every animal at the time yes. The first sin was separation from God triggered by eating the fruit. Nowhere is it identified as an apple. People did live for a long time. This decreases as the universe continues to follow the laws on entropy. Which particular passage is the dome and water reference in? I’d like to examine it. The creation of different languages is a punishment from God. In fact, langauge scholars today are considering that languages were all derived from one original. As for angels and humans fornicating, it is not clear how this was accomplished, perhaps strictly as you’d think it or through posession. YOu can find apologetics on all these items.

A lot of the stories in Genesis are forms of ancient Babylonian myths (which are far older than Genesis) that are tailored to explain truths about faith, not about history. The idea that Evolution is completely unproven is laughable. 99% of scientists believe in evolution. The idea that it is somehow a conspiracy to destroy the Word of God is also laughable. Faith and reason cannot contradict each other. That means, that one should not ignore reason. There is no contradiction between the Catholic faith and evolution. The Bible tells us that God created everything, not how God created everything. I recommend that you read Evolution and Creation: A Catholic Understanding by Rev. William Kramer.

I am aware of GIlgamesh and other myths. Many myths around the world are starkingly similar to each other particularly with Adam and Eve, a tree and a global flood. Moses no doubt would’ve been aware of it. However under the inspiration of God, he wrote the true account. The Babylonian and other culture’s myths are a result of human error and corruption overtime concerning the real story. Evolution is not ‘unporven’ as far as science dictates. It is a philosophical assumption and all evidence is interpreted assuming it as background knowledge. One could easily come up with something new and imagine scenarios where empirical evidence and fossils can suit the belief. Faith, well OUR faith will never cotradict reason. We are told in the Bible to give reason for our faith when we are called to account for it. The contradition between the Catholic faith and evolution comes with combining long ages that involved death and sufferring and trying to figure out why God created such a world in the first place, said it was our sin that began this process and why He’s send a Messiah to save us from the very thing He set up Himself calling it ‘very good.’ It completely undermines the Crucifixion and Resurrection. Learned atheists know this very well. If you believe that God is the inspiritional author of the Bible (an article of faith I believe), and it can be demonstrated that Genesis is written as historic literature as intended by the author, then God tells us very clearly some details about how the universe was created.

Fundamentalism is a Protestant invention. Unfortunately, many people have confused ignorance with piety.

It is, when reading the Bible literally word for word in the English language or assuming all the books are of one genre. The Bible contains Historic literature, documents of law, poetry, extended parables, biography and apocalyptic literature. One should know what is what and that determines how to read it. Knowing the nuances of Hebrew and Greek also helps greatly as well as knowing the culture and way of life of people in that region at the period of the book’s writing. Unfortunately people are too ingorant about these aspects which leads many to reject the Bible while others are too intimidated and succumb to accepting falliable ideas.

 

[jdnation]

AlanFromWichita:

http://holybibble.net/images/strips/1135338942.gif

http://www.answersingenesis.org/CreationWise/Cartoons/(name removed by moderator)utOutput.gif