But if God is responsible for these natural forces then I don’t understand how this view leaves Him out of the equation and thus is unacceptable for Catholics.The secual humanist view is that we evolved from single celled organisms through natural selection which was acted on exclusively by natural forces. Catholics may not accept this view because it denies the creative act of God.
biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-divine-action/BioLogos states that “once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity," and “humans are part of this process.” Moreover, “once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required.”3
biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-divine-action/BioLogos requires no miraculous events in its account of God’s creative process, except for the origins of the natural laws guiding the process.
Yes, I am aware of that, it deals with probabilities but it’s only that, a chance or probability. Not hard science. The fact is, the probability of the human eye and all the functions required to make it work to come together at the right precise time through a series of random mutations is astronomically low.There is a science called population genetics, and it has mathematical formulae for how quickly favorable genetic changes can spread throughout a population of sexually reproducing creatures.
I believe what I’m saying is that Darwinian evolution is not a sufficient explanation for how an eye came to be. St. Augustine once stipulated that all creation came from a “rational seed” that is to say something which has a purpose and logic. What evolution attempts to do is give us a blind and irrational explanation of how things evolved or a “random seed” as I like to call it. This is contrary to the notion that there is a logical explanation for why things occur in nature and it’s therefore anti-science.Is it your understanding that our eyes must have evolved from nothing to become what they currently are?
You apparently criticize probability as not being “hard science” only when it doesn’t support ID since you then claimed that the eye could not have evolved based on “astronomically low” probability. I hope you recognize your inconsistencies.Yes, I am aware of that, it deals with probabilities but it’s only that, a chance or probability. Not hard science. The fact is, the probability of the human eye and all the functions required to make it work to come together at the right precise time through a series of random mutations is astronomically low.
Sure, your could argue it’s a God-guided process. But it’s still a black box as far as Darwinian evolution is concerned. It’s tantamount to saying, well, God it, or better yet in the words of atheistic militants: chance did it.What is random and/or chance to God? Something that is completely random to us is simple to God.
I think the two coincide, there is still a low probability. Too many things had to go just right for this to happen. I don’t know about you, but science should not take chance for an answer. There has to be more to it than that.You apparently criticize probability as not being “hard science” only when it doesn’t support ID since you then claimed that the eye could not have evolved based on “astronomically low” probability. I hope you recognize your inconsistencies.
Again, read this:I believe what I’m saying is that Darwinian evolution is not a sufficient explanation for how an eye came to be.
Based on what? The conveniently vague and arbitrary improbability argument is hardly convincing.Too many things had to go just right for this to happen.
Evolved? Not likely. The coelocanth has a simple muscle around an artery that pumps blood. It is doing perfectly well. So it is valid to say there are simple and more complex ways to pump blood, but to say one evolved from another is speculative.Incorrect. Whales and Dolphins lack a part of the system and their blood clots perfectly well. Lampreys lack even more of the system and their blood also clots. It is by examining such simpler clotting systems that we can show evidence of common descent and work out how our current clotting system evolved from simpler beginnings. For a description see The Evolution of Vertebrate Blood Clotting by Ken Miller, who is a Catholic.
rossum
Why don’t you write it out based on your own understanding and not just what ‘they’ tell you. It’s not ‘personal incredulity’ it’s looking at the evidence and drawing a thoughtful conclusion.Again, read this:
On the fact that you just can’t take random pieces and throw them together to make an eye. There are specific parts that need to go in there. It’s similar to assembling a car, it has to follow a strict design, if you have a part missing, the car won’t work. Now I really don’t mind a civil discussion on this topic, so I think we should try to keep this insightful and not virulent.Based on what? The conveniently vague and arbitrary improbability argument is hardly convincing.
Because inevitably you or others will demand that I corroborate my words with sources, so why not list them to begin with and not lose anything in translation?Why don’t you write it out based on your own understanding and not just what ‘they’ tell you.
That article clearly offers pathways by which the eye evolved, so I don’t understand why you cling to irreducible complexity.On the fact that you just can’t take random pieces and throw them together to make an eye. There are specific parts that need to go in there. It’s similar to assembling a car, it has to follow a strict design, if you have a part missing, the car won’t work. Now I really don’t mind a civil discussion on this topic, so I think we should try to keep this insightful and not virulent.
The point I’m making is that those are based on speculation and not hard science. The *objective *fact remains that the eye is an irreducibly complex organ. There is no way of getting around this argument. *All *of the empirical data shows that if you take something out or change it; it will fail. The only way to debunk this is if you can prove in the lab an eye that works with any part that is missing.That article clearly offers pathways by which the eye evolved, so I don’t understand why you cling to irreducible complexity.
As the article points out, it is more speculative to claim that no pathway exists because we can observe each of these steps in nature.The point I’m making is that those are based on speculation and not hard science.
“Eyes” exhibit varying degrees of complexity, based on the function they serve. You must understand that this organ may still fulfill a purpose for an organism even if it isn’t as complex as that of a human eye. Beginning with an “eye” composed merely of a photosensitive cell, this organ eventually attained the level of complexity found among human eyes via gradual evolutionary steps.The *objective *fact remains that the eye is an irreducibly complex organ. There is no way of getting around this argument. *All *of the empirical data shows that if you take something out or change it; it will fail. The only way to debunk this is if you can prove in the lab an eye that works with any part that is missing.
Changing our eyes, this is indeed true. However that is working backwards from the most complex eye towards a primitive eye. Evolution works in the other direction from the most primitive eye towards a more complex eye. Working forwards we add parts rather then subtract them. Essentially we can add an optional part and then let the eye evolve so the the new optional part becomes essential. There are working eyes which lack almost all of the parts present in our eyes. The simplest chordate eye, in the lancelet, is equivalent to a patch of retina being exposed on the surface of the skin. All the rest helps but is not absolutely required. The lancelet’s eye serves perfectly well the purposes for which the lancelet needs it. Our eyes serve us perfectly well, but would be useless for a hawk seeking prey; to a hawk our eyes would just give a fuzzy blur.The point I’m making is that those are based on speculation and not hard science. The *objective *fact remains that the eye is an irreducibly complex organ. There is no way of getting around this argument. *All *of the empirical data shows that if you take something out or change it; it will fail.
We can breed lancelets in the lab.The only way to debunk this is if you can prove in the lab an eye that works with any part that is missing.
Again, I believe what I’m saying is not that there is no path, it’s that “random mutations” is not a sufficient explanation.As the article points out, it is more speculative to claim that no pathway exists because we can observe each of these steps in nature.
I’ve already talked about complexity; so far, the data does not show how systems could have evolved into more complex beings. So your claim is unsubstantiated, based on the current state of things, you seem to think natural selection always chooses complexity. But that’s not the theory of Darwinian evolution. Basically you have to work under a premise that this is indeed the case for it to make sense.Evolution works in the other direction from the most primitive eye towards a more complex eye.
Yeah, but you are dealing with completely different designs, which is tantamount to saying that a model T car can evolve into a Ferrari. You have to take into consideration that a model T requires completely different mechanical parts for it’s design, sure, you may draw similarities but these are not the same thing.There are working eyes which lack almost all of the parts present in our eyes.
I believe what he’s saying that they are *unlikely *to have evolved. Which as I’ve said, it’s kind of hoping that a group of monkeys hacking at a typewriter will reproduce Shakespearean literature.Behe’s own work shows that IC systems can evolve and that they do so reasonably quickly. The argument from Irreducible Complexity is not looking very good in scientific terms at the moment.
I agree, random mutation alone is insufficient. Random mutation and natural selection working together over many generations are sufficient.Again, I believe what I’m saying is not that there is no path, it’s that “random mutations” is not a sufficient explanation.
There is a complete sequence, mutation by mutation, of the evolution of an Irreducibly Complex system from a non-IC system given here. That data most certainly shows how complexity can evolve.I’ve already talked about complexity; so far, the data does not show how systems could have evolved into more complex beings.
That is not what I think. In many cases complexity is selected, but in other cases it is not. In the case of eyes the tendancy has generally been towards increased complexity in larger animals - we are a lot larger than a lancelet.you seem to think natural selection always chooses complexity. But that’s not the theory of Darwinian evolution.
Not quite. Behe was calculating how many monkeys could produce a small amount of Shakespeare. His own figures showed that a small baterial population could produce a simple IC system using only a subset of available mutation types in about 20,000 years. On his own figures IC systems can evolve relatively easily.I believe what he’s saying that they are *unlikely *to have evolved. Which as I’ve said, it’s kind of hoping that a group of monkeys hacking at a typewriter will reproduce Shakespearean literature.
Yes, natural selection as the *guiding *process, but, it’s still left to chance as the *transient *condition. I find no issue with natural selection in so far as adaptations occur, it’s the wildcard I find problematic. Accident is just another fancy word for saying: I really have no idea what’s going on so we are just going to call it that.I agree, random mutation alone is insufficient. Random mutation and natural selection working together over many generations are sufficient.
Well, this is speculation unless you can show empirically how an eye can evolve through a series of mutations.There is a complete sequence, mutation by mutation, of the evolution of an Irreducibly Complex system from a non-IC system given here. That data most certainly shows how complexity can evolve.
You mean it’s safe to assume that because that is what we see in nature. Although this does not tell us *why *this occurs. Natural selection is not a guiding principle that is intrinsically keen on choosing complexity, remember, it is blind, it has no bearing on whether something is better than the other. Selective pressures aren’t necessarily looking for improvements, there must be something else that is.That is not what I think. In many cases complexity is selected, but in other cases it is not. In the case of eyes the tendancy has generally been towards increased complexity in larger animals - we are a lot larger than a lancelet.
I pretty much rest my case if you really believe that.Behe was calculating how many monkeys could produce a small amount of Shakespeare.