Intelligent Design is Self-refuting

[buffalo]

Look, here’s the deal. Christians have two choices. Deny Evolution entirely, and maintain the current Theology OR accept scientific discovery and make adjustments to the theology. Ideology has nothing to do with it.

Uh no. Evolution does not have to be denied entirely, just the parts that are wrong. The revisions are being made to the theory.

 

[edwest211]

The lame gravity story again. I can test gravity all I want. I learned how to use it to get a basketball through the net. I understand atheism and I also see science being used to promote it. I accept what the Church teaches about evolution. Science is partly blind by design. Evolution is the foundation of nothing. It cannot be used in drug discovery, which is still trial and error. On TV I’m told about new drugs that can harm me or even kill me. So much for modern science getting it right. Flu shots are a waste of time.

 

[edwest211]

There will be zero adjustments to anything. Your example, whether you realize it or not, promotes atheism. Some people say they fear a Theocracy. They should fear a Technocracy run by men, who will kill anyone or expose anyone to grave risk without their consent. You have no business using science to argue against religion.

 

[edwest211]

Please don’t deny Catholic dogmas here to replace them with atheist science.

 

[LateCatholic]

What part of evolution theory claims that the macro evolution of human beings was not a singularity?

Not Evolution per se but genetic analysis of human beings indicates that we all descended from the stock of approximately 10,000 humans around 70,000 years ago. So far two such “genetic bottlenecks” have been found. Genetic stock from one couple is not survivable, based on numerous studies of endangered species.

You can say based on ancestry all humans descend from the ONE ensouled human, but it is mathematically hard to believe - an incredible coincidence. This is the true theological challenge of Evolution and Christianity. Creationism and young earthers, which get all the press, is just noise.

Again, not so because sin and sanctity are spiritual properties and beyond the grasp of science which limits itself to observable things. We cannot see sin or sanctity in fossils.

I would agree with this but that is NOT the official position of the Church. The Church specifically says that Original Sin comes from a real event in history, the first sin (or rejection of God) , by the ONE AND ONLY human that had a soul - even though thousands of other humans were alive at the time - and all of us alive today descended from that person. No other independent genetic lines exist. This is not my opinion - this is what the Church says about it. You and I can agree that Original Sin is a spiritual concept. But it is the Church itself that has defined it within the realm of science, history, genetics, and archaeology.

 

[LateCatholic]

Evolution is the foundation of nothing.

A statement so ignorant and ridiculous it borders on being dangerous. And keep im mind this is from twenty years ago. Think how far we have come since then. Please read the following document, starting on page 22:

https://www.ugr.es/~jmgreyes/Evolwhite.pdf

Here’s an outline to save time. Each topic has nearly a page worth of examples. Evolution is either the foremost or has been beneficial in the following:

1. Treating genetic diseases
2. Treating systematic diseases
3. Treating infectious diseases
4. Defining procedures for the improvement of normal physiological functions
5. Animal and plant breeding and improving farming
6. Preventing loss of species and maintaining critical biodiversity
7. Pest management
8. Genetic engineering and preventing inherited diseases
9. Managing and improving forestry and fisheries
10. Identifying useful natural products spurring economic growth
11. Managing the environment and conservationism

The above is followed by an entire section on non-biological benefits. For example, my favorite, is how Racism is intellectually dishonest based on Evolutionary theory. Specifically, “race” is a social construct, not a biological one. There is no scientific basis for racism. We can thank Evolution for that.

Saying Evolution is not the foundation for anything is not even worth responding to. But I did anyway.

 

[Bradskii]

Saying Evolution is not the foundation for anything is not even worth responding to. But I did anyway.

It’s quite the problem. Someone like Ed will say something outrageously and mind boggingly nonsensical and your immediate response is: ‘Nah, not even worthy of a response’.

But…others will be reading it and you know you just have to make sure they know the wheat from the chaff.

We are the sowers of wheat amongst the spreaders of chaff!

 

[LateCatholic]

Evolution does not have to be denied entirely, just the parts that are wrong.

What parts are wrong? Refinement does not mean a theory is invalid, just as Newton wasn’t “wrong” when Einstein found a more accurate Theory of Gravity.

Regardless, the point I am making is that 200 years ago, the prevailing position of the Catholic Church was that Adam and Eve were real, historical figures. Now, the prevailing view is that “Adam” is a figurative term representing the first human that rejected God, whereupon we all descended. That is an adjustment to the Theology of the Church. More is to come. Will we reach the point where actual Catechism will be changed? Some people say it already has. With Pope Francis, I think we are well on our way.

 

[LateCatholic]

I think it’s obvious that if Catholicism were to start today, then it would reflect today’s current knowledge. The problem is in trying to fit stories from millenia ago (that could be interpreted as being metaphorical in any case) as factual events into what we know to be true.

I agree - but so why the hangup and consternation of making adjustments? So we know Adam and Eve were not real. We know Original Sin doesn’t make sense from a historical perspective. So, let’s adjust. No big deal, in my mind. For others, it’s a catastrophe.

 

[LateCatholic]

Any couple among those ancestors could have been Genesis’ Adam and Eve. When the designation changes, then the old holder of the title will always be an ancestor of the new holder.

Here’s the point I am making. Let’s say today’s designated Y-Adam is the one that got the first soul. Well, he wasn’t Y-Adam while he was alive. There were thousands of other fellow humans alive at the time. Heck, he probably wasn’t even human since genetics say he was alive around 300,000 years ago.

And so he committed the first sin. Now, all his children get souls. No one else. For thousands of years, we have people with souls living alongside people without souls.
They are almost certainly related. Imagine knowing you’ve got a soul but your cousin does not. According to the Church, all humans alive today descended from him. A truly astonishing coincidence. Unless you claim God deliberately killed off the other genetic lines, which raises all sorts of additional questions.

The whole think strains credulity. I think if people actually understood what we are told to believe, they’d have second thoughts. Perhaps it is time to abandon the historical concept of Original Sin, and consider it a spiritual aspect of being alive - not an actual event. Most people have already done this same with the Creation story and Noah. We all evolved. Maybe Christianity needs to as well.

 

[buffalo]

Have a magisterial document overthrowing Adam and Eve?

• Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])
• Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
• Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
• Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)
• The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ [ Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus ).
• The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.
• Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus ).
• Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).

 

[o_mlly]

Not Evolution per se but genetic analysis of human beings indicates that we all descended from the stock of approximately 10,000 humans around 70,000 years ago.

This argument dismisses the agreed truth between science and theology that the spiritual realm is not evidenced in the material realm. The soul and kind of soul a being possesses is beyond direct observation.

Now, if evidence showed that those so-called humans 70,000 years ago were dispersed and multiple groups evidenced rational thought (soul) or a spiritual dimension, e.g., abstract drawings, ceremonial burial of their dead, etc. then this indirect evidence might offer more to discover. But the most science can say is that that population were human in physical form and nothing more. Science may call them materially human beings but theologians may call them merely human-like and precursors to the first human being.

You can say based on ancestry all humans descend from the ONE ensouled human, but it is mathematically hard to believe - an incredible coincidence

Yes, and that is how Divine Intervention must work.

By extension, original sin - as defined by Christianity - is false

Again, not so because sin and sanctity are spiritual properties and beyond the grasp of science which limits itself to observable things. We cannot see sin or sanctity in fossils.

I would agree with this but that is NOT the official position of the Church. The Church specifically says that Original Sin comes from a real event in history, the first sin (or rejection of God) , by the ONE AND ONLY human that had a soul - even though thousands of other humans were alive at the time - and all of us alive today descended from that person.

I do not see why begin with “but that is NOT the official position of the Church”. What specifically in my post is the “that” which does not agree with Catholic teaching?

 

[edwest211]

Dangerous - the favorite word of certain people which I have seen over and over. There is no way to treat anything using evolution. Jonas Salk announces a vaccine that is effective against polio in 1953. He tested it on himself, on his family and some patients. That is why I point out that on TV, today, new drugs that can harm or kill me are being marketed. The knowledge of how to improve plants was going on way before Darwin’s book and grafting is mentioned in the Bible.

Evolution provides zero aid in treating genetic diseases. Thanks to tools like CRISPER Cas3, scientists can now actually do something.

 

[buffalo]

Listen to the dialogue at 35:30 minutes. Design, no it cannot be.


Late for tea - hilarious…

 

[edwest211]

Wow. Really?

 

[edwest211]

He’s a funny guy.

 

[edwest211]

Catholics do not worship the god Change.

 

[o_mlly]

… genetic analysis of human beings indicates that we all descended from the stock of approximately 10,000 humans around 70,000 years ago. So far two such “genetic bottlenecks” have been found. Genetic stock from one couple is not survivable, based on numerous studies of endangered species.

Geneticists have discovered that the ancestors of those 10,000 humans were one man and one woman:
http://web.mit.edu/racescience/in_media/what_dna_says_about_human/index.htm

Mitochondrial DNA indicates that all living humans descend from one maternal source—christened Mitochondrial Eve—who lived in Africa between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago. Similarly, the Y chromosome shows that all men have a common ancestor, Y-chromosome Adam, who lived at the same time.

 

[rossum]

Geneticists have discovered that the ancestors of those 10,000 humans were one man and one woman:

They were, but those were not the only two people alive at the time. We have all inherited our mitochondrial DNA from M-Eve. All males have inherited their Y-chromosome from Y-Adam. However, our other chromosomes: #1 to #22 and our X chromosome will have come from other members of the human population alive before, at the same time or after M-Eve and Y-Adam.

There is too much variation in the human genome for a genetic bottleneck of two people.

 

[Bradskii]

LateCatholic:

… genetic analysis of human beings indicates that we all descended from the stock of approximately 10,000 humans around 70,000 years ago. So far two such “genetic bottlenecks” have been found. Genetic stock from one couple is not survivable, based on numerous studies of endangered species.

Geneticists have discovered that the ancestors of those 10,000 humans were one man and one woman:
http://web.mit.edu/racescience/in_media/what_dna_says_about_human/index.htm

Mitochondrial DNA indicates that all living humans descend from one maternal source—christened Mitochondrial Eve—who lived in Africa between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago. Similarly, the Y chromosome shows that all men have a common ancestor, Y-chromosome Adam, who lived at the same time.

If you think that means at exactly the same time and that those two people bumped into each other and made whoopy, then you are wrong.

Ther terms do not refer to specific individuals. Mitochondrila Eve is the most recent common ancestor. The MRCA changes depending on lines of decent today. From wiki:

‘Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor for all modern humans. Whenever one of the two most ancient branch lines dies out, the MRCA will move to a more recent female ancestor, always the most recent mother to have more than one daughter with living maternal line descendants alive today’.

So Eve was never one woman. She has always been many and will always change.