Interview: Dr. David Berlinski on Evolution

[Orogeny]

Retract that statement your soul is dirty I suspect.

What in the world does that mean?

From Pope Benedict:

While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.

bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm

Is the Pope’s soul dirty too?

Peace

Tim

 

[PhilVaz]

See also the EWTN article "The Credo of Paul VI: Theology of Original Sin and the Scientific Theory of Evolution" by Roberto Masi:

“…according to the opinions of the above mentioned exegetes and theologians, it results that Revelation and Dogma say nothing directly concerning Monogenism or Polygenism, neither in favour nor against them. Besides, these scientific hypotheses are per se outside the field of Revelation. Within this context, different combinations of the scientific theory of evolution are therefore hypothetically possible or compatible with the doctrine of original sin. One can nevertheless consider biological monogenism together. Humanity has its origin in a single couple; this couple committed the sin against God and as a result of this all their children are born in original sin. This is the classical doctrine. Or it is possible to admit a biological polygenism and a theological monogenism. Evolution brought about not a single couple but many men, who constituted the primitive human population. One of these, who may be considered the leader, rebelled against God. This sin passed on to all men, his contemporaries, not by imitation, but by real propagation (Council of Trent Session V, DS. 1513), that is by a real solidarity already existing in this primordial human population. In them actual sinful humanity has its origin. It is also possible to combine biological and theological polygenism: all the primitive human population rebelled concordantly against God and from them are born the other sinful men. These hypotheses are only suppositions which many think are not contrary to Revelation and the bible. Even if we accept as valid the scientific theory of evolution and polygenism, it can still be in accordance with the dogma of original sin in the various manners indicated.” (Fr. Roberto Masi, from L’Osservatore Romano, the newspaper of the Holy See, weekly edition in English, 17 April 1969)

There’s the spiritual monogenism, and biological polygenism. See also the 2004 ITC statement (paragraph 63-64) on our evolution from a population of human-like creatures: “…physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage…” Cardinal Ratzinger head of this commission who gave permission for its publication at the time doesn’t have a problem with this. The most recent statements and opinions we have from prominent churchmen (e.g. Schonborn, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, etc) is that they accept the science.

They do not question it, as Berlinski tends to do (to bring us back on topic).

Phil P

 

[rossum]

You do understand that the above is no help to the theory of evolution. A population that splits so that one cannot interbreed with the other is a loss of function due to a loss of information i.e. the ability to interbreed.

Evolution has no problem with loss of information, witness blind cave fish. If a loss of information is advantagous then evolution will follow that path.

What needs to be demonstrated is the massive, massive gain of information to get from ameoba/primordial soup/first common ancestor to human.

Please indicate what measure of infomration you are using. A gene duplication followed by a mutation in one of the copies increases both Shannon infirmation and Kolmogorov information. Gene duplication has been observes. Mutations have been observed. Both processes can be seen in the human genome; we have a number of different globin genes for making the different variants of haemoglobin and myoglobin which are found in clusters (along with some inactive pseudogenes) in the human genome. These are the result of gene duplications and mutations of the copies. If a gain in information is advantagous then evolution will follow that path.

You don’t get rich by losing money.

You don’t defeat evolution by tilting at strawmen either. Evolution is a process that copies information from the environment into genomes. There is no problem with increasing the amount of information in the genome as long as there is new information to copy in from the environment.

rossum

 

[Rogerteder]

“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

It has been the constant teaching of the Church that (in official documents) mankind descended from Adam. No where, in official statements (including the new catechism) , has the Church taught what you said earlier Phil (that Adam and Eve were selected from a group of people) SORRY!!! WHO IS YOUR GOD SCIENCE OR THE GOD OF THE BIBLE??? If Fatima really happened (70, 000 people saw the sun dance–some were atheists in the Portuguese government) then I wouldnt put a whole lot of weight in science. Especially when science conflicts with Church teaching.

 

[ricmat]

Evolution has no problem with loss of information, witness blind cave fish. If a loss of information is advantagous then evolution will follow that path.
rossum

Hi Rossum. I’m not sure I understand your statement above. I can see (no pun intended) how having sight is not an advantage for a cave fish. But how is being blind in a cave advantageous?

 

[rossum]

Hi Rossum. I’m not sure I understand your statement above. I can see (no pun intended) how having sight is not an advantage for a cave fish. But how is being blind in a cave advantageous?

Eyes take energy to build and to run. With less or no energy diverted to its eyes, the fish can survive on less food and/or it can put more resources into making eggs or sperm. Either way it is likely to have more offspring than a fish which put its resources into useless eyes. Natural selection works on the number of descendants - the more copies of your genes in subsequent generations the better.

rossum

 

[neophyte]

You do understand that the above is no help to the theory of evolution. A population that splits so that one cannot interbreed with the other is a loss of function due to a loss of information i.e. the ability to interbreed.

What needs to be demonstrated is the massive, massive gain of information to get from ameoba/primordial soup/first common ancestor to human. You don’t get rich by losing money.

Sounds like you’re adhering to the fallacious idea that the 2nd Law of thermodynamics somehow disproves evolution. The only folks who believe that are those who don’t really understand the 2nd Law.

 

[Rogerteder]

Question: Phil And Others Do You Believe In The Virgin Birth?

(the reason i ask–science says this can’t happen)

 

[neophyte]

Question: Phil And Others Do You Believe In The Virgin Birth?

(the reason i ask–science says this can’t happen)

Science says no such thing. That’s a conclusion that is commonly arrived at, but it can’t be supported using the scientific method.

 

[buffalo]

This thread is not about Adam and Eve. Many other threads on that. You brought up Berlinski and he has been shown to know little science. But I will digress…

John Paul II himself wasn’t so sure Adam and Eve were “real people.” See his commentary on Genesis in the "Theology of the Body" series. I’ve brought that up before. Schonborn believes we humans are ultimately “star stuff” and doesn’t have a problem with human evolution (I’ve quoted his Chance or Purpose book several times). Benedict XVI believes the same in his commentary on Genesis and the 2004 ITC statement (esp paragraphs 62-70). You can interpret and reconcile this how you like. The Catechism does seem clear however about Adam/Eve (esp paragraphs 359, 375-377, 379, 388, 390-392, and the summary at 416-419).

I believe Adam and Eve were real in that they would have been “selected” out of a population of hominids/humans, and given human souls, and tempted. I.E. spiritual monogenism, and biological polygenism.

When did Adam/Eve live? That’s a tough question but a good answer is found in this article I compiled from Keith Miller (Perspectives on an Evolving Creation) and Dennis Bonnette (Origin of the Human Species).

Adam, Eve, and the Hominid Fossil Record

Pius XII or the magisterium doesn’t speak to when Adam/Eve would have lived, nor how to reconcile them with our present knowledge that we all evolved from a population of hominids/humans.

Phil P

Why would it surprise anyone that a current Pope could think that given the religion of evolution?

 

[hecd2]

Eyes take energy to build and to run. With less or no energy diverted to its eyes, the fish can survive on less food and/or it can put more resources into making eggs or sperm. Either way it is likely to have more offspring than a fish which put its resources into useless eyes. Natural selection works on the number of descendants - the more copies of your genes in subsequent generations the better.

rossum

I don’t quite see it this way I don’t think that building or maintaining eyes is that resource-hungry. It seems to me that the loss of sight occurs because the normal purifying selection process for sight is inoperative. On other words, blindness is normally selected out, but in a cave where it is no disadvantage, blindness is neutral and the mutations causing blindness can fix in the population the same as any other neutral mutation. The lesson here is the importance and power of purifying selection.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Sideline]

Why would it surprise anyone that a current Pope could think that given the religion of evolution?

Does anyone else find it funny that when religious people want to insult something they call it a “religion”?

If evolution is a religion, it is a very strange one. It is the only religion I know that is built on a consensus of the observable data, has its proponents battle each other endlessly, changes with new information, and is willing to abandon the ideas that no longer work.

 

[buffalo]

Does anyone else find it funny that when religious people want to insult something they call it a “religion”?

If evolution is a religion, it is a very strange one. It is the only religion I know that is built on a consensus of the observable data, has its proponents battle each other endlessly, changes with new information, and is willing to abandon the ideas that no longer work.

Perhaps I should have used the word philosophy.

But your point is exactly the one I was making. It is the current consensus view.

 

[Sideline]

Perhaps I should have used the word philosophy.

But philosophy wouldn’t have been funny.

I like funny. Funny is funny.

But your point is exactly the one I was making. It is the current consensus view.

In that case is, the question is, why do you suppose it is the consensus view? Why would nearly all scientists, studying completely different fields, agree that evolution is about as close to fact as science can demonstrate?

Surely if they could prove that it isn’t true, they would. Nobody remembers the scientists who just agreed with prevailing opinion. The really famous scientists are the ones who bucked the trend and came up with something new. You would think that there was a lot of incentive to prove that evolution was wrong.

Actually, most people in the United States believe that evolution is wrong. Now all they have to do is prove it.

 

[buffalo]

But philosophy wouldn’t have been funny.

I like funny. Funny is funny.

In that case is, the question is, why do you suppose it is the consensus view? Why would nearly all scientists, studying completely different fields, agree that evolution is about as close to fact as science can demonstrate?

Surely if they could prove that it isn’t true, they would. Nobody remembers the scientists who just agreed with prevailing opinion. The really famous scientists are the ones who bucked the trend and came up with something new. You would think that there was a lot of incentive to prove that evolution was wrong.

Actually, most people in the United States believe that evolution is wrong. Now all they have to do is prove it.

I guess one has to be a scientist to believe it.

 

[Sideline]

About the OP:

Why would anyone care what a person, who is either ignorant or lying about evolution, has to say?

 

[buffalo]

About the OP:

Why would anyone care what a person, who is either ignorant or lying about evolution, has to say?

I was interested in his take on the odds. He is a mathemetician and has run some numbers.

 

[Sideline]

I guess one has to be a scientist to believe it.

Actually, that’s probably true to an extent.

I’m not actually a scientist, but I have taken a year of biology, and higher level courses in human and primate evolution.

When I was in high school, I didn’t believe in evolution at all. I didn’t like the theory one bit, and the less I knew about it, the less trouble I had in disbelieving it.

It was only by studying the theory that I was forced to admit that the evidence was overwhelming. The interesting thing is, I didn’t know half of the information that I know now about it. I mean, for me the knockdown punch was delivered in the 90’s. Before I had ever even heard about endogenous retroviruses and other biological discoveries of the past 10 years.

So, yes, I would agree that a person must really understand the science to accept that it is true.

 

[Sideline]

I was interested in his take on the odds. He is a mathemetician and has run some numbers.

Did you read the OP?

He doesn’t talk about odds. He says that the theory hasn’t been tested (which is wrong). He says that all it claims is what survives, survives (which is wrong). Then he just repeats this several times.

There isn’t anything about the odds.

 

[buffalo]

Did you read the OP?

He doesn’t talk about odds. He says that the theory hasn’t been tested (which is wrong). He says that all it claims is what survives, survives (which is wrong). Then he just repeats this several times.

There isn’t anything about the odds.

I was referring to my Post #10.