Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mVitus said:
If you’re saying evolution can only be used to explain the physical origins of creatures alive today, then I can agree.
Click to expand...
These threads move too fast.

No, I’m saying it can’t. This is how I see it:

What is 100% certain is creation. From there the details become less clear. To get more specific, we need science. Darwinism isn’t really science, but rather a story or philosophy that takes the actual data and moulds it into an explanatory system that allows us to make sense of the world.

What science reveals is that everything has been around a very long time and that during that time things have been different than they are now. There has been a progression in creation, which has been a step-wise process in which new forms of being were brought into existence from what had previously been created.

At some point the universe was an amorphous plasma. As it stretched out, it took shape with the creation of subatomic and then atomic particles. The four basic interactions of nature came with them as the fundamental relationships that govern material being. Even at the simplest level, the universe bears the stamp of the Triune Godhead.

Fast-forward to the barren earth.

God eternal, bringing everything into existence from the beginning to the end, in time, let’s say, covered the world in moss, in order to facilitate the growth of His next creation - plants. Before that He brought into existence simple cells, in order to progress to the next stage. God’s not a control freak; He’s the Supreme Artist, who marvels at His creation, and who made us that we might share it with Him.

I had to break the post into two; condensing it further would make it even less understandable.
 
Last edited:
What I see as having happened is the making of pluripotential organisms. He brought into existence plants. Before that maybe until 500,000,000 years ago, life was basically pond scum. I believe it was about that time that the first land animals appeared. It all goes together with different individual living beings forming one environment. This isn’t Gaia; it’s God’s creation. It’s hard not to get bogged down in the minutiae of how God made this happen, and science is always coming up with new information. At this point I’m doing what Darwinism does, but constructing a much different story.

I’m not mocking you; I don’t want to be the Richard Dawkins of a parallel creationist universe. But, what you described earlier about evolution through radiation is beyond far-fetched. If it weren’t the common story, it would be weird. I’m not saying they were the only good things that came from being irradiated, but the Hulk, the Fantastic Four and of course, Dr. Manhatten, as pretentious and annoying as he was walking around naked, were pretty much it. That’s not how the diverse complexity of life happened. Life being created as it was, interacted and through such capacities such as the sharing of genomic material, new forms populated the earth.

This may sound like evolution, but it isn’t. Random events happening at an atomic level, involving those processes alone and not guided by God, shut things down. Things aren’t built that way; it is a process of death - pretty much what is all around us in this fallen world. Speciation resulting from such factors happens through genomic deletion, as is being shown in current research. It had to start with a complete genome - with respect to mankind, Adam, physically perfect in his capacity to exist on earth.

The real problem lies in not appreciating the fact that the physical is inseparable from the soul which organizes the matter to be itself. What I see is that each is a new creation developing from a seed, utilizing the information derived from its parents to eventually grow physically to be itself, be it plant or animal or human. To my mind species, kinds, do exist as do their individual expressions, the individual organism. We see all this being ourselves within our relationships with the world, one another and with God, the Source of our being. It would be no more difficult for Him, probably simpler, to have created Adam as an adult, rather than compressing all that information into the first human zygote to grow in a hominid, whose gemetes would not have been used because they would result simply in another animal.

This is a synopsis of what makes sense to me. I hope someone reads this wall of words. As enjoyable as it was writing this, sharing it makes it moreso and more importantly, worthwhile.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
What is 100% certain is creation.
Click to expand...
No it is not. A Muslim is 100% certain that the Christian God did not create the world. A Jew is 100% certain that the Christian God did not create the world. A Hindu is 100% certain that the Christian God did not create the world. An atheist is 100% certain that the Christian God (or any other god) did not create the world.

There are hundreds (thousands?) of different creations by different gods. None of them is 100% certain and none of them have 100% certainty.

You are overreaching here. You personally may be 100% certain, but that does not make your belief certain. People can have incorrect beliefs. Are a Mormon’s beliefs about the Book of Mormon correct?

rossum
 
Last edited:
An interesting read of your thoughts. Your definition of ‘creation’ also gives a clearer look at your prior posts. (To be honest, up until now I was thinking you were using it to describe a literal 6-days.)

And while it seems clear by your post, I just want to confirm my understanding of your view. Is it correct to say that your view is that over the same timeline accepted by most scientists, the various stages of life happened, but instead of natural slection, each new species was created from the dust as it were? So single-celled bacteria existed. They all stayed single-celled and multi-celled were created ex nihilio. So on and so forth.

As a note on the radiation comment. As I mentioned at the time I said it, I was spiralling a bit. And I do want to clear up that I don’t see radiation as the only factor. (With sexual creatures you get a nice mixing of genes even without mutations.) It was essentially me thinking aloud as it were.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
I sympathise with timothyvail, so I wonder if I could look at the question from a different perspective. Instead of spending our time arguing for or against evolution as the method by which God creates, can we look more closely at the alternative? If not evolution, then what? Edwest211, Aloysium, Techno2000 or buffalo, if I understand you correctly, reject evolution, and think that when God created ‘kinds’, he did so without those kinds having forebears. Is that correct? I would like to know a few more details before inquiring more deeply. Take elephants. Do you think that when God created elephants - either in the week of creation or whenever, depending on whether you’re an YEC or a OEC - they just popped onto the grass of a forest clearing? If not, then what did happen? And how many? And in what form? Roughly?

In my understanding of creationism, poor though it be, there seems to be absolutely nothing more that creationists offer except the word ‘created’. They do not know how, where, when, in what form and numbers, or indeed anything at all further than the word itself. They have no evidence other than human tradition, and no inclination to find out. They repudiate any rational inquiry.

In the posts above, there is mention of whales and birds, and how they cannot have evolved. If that were so, then can somebody explain exactly (or even vaguely) what happened, in such a way that does not contradict the evidence of the world we see around us today. Come on, all you creationists! Take a break from criticising what you think I believe, and tell me what you believe instead!
Click to expand...
I would say that he handcrafted them from clay/earth like a sculptor would, then breathed life into them.Each one to fill a niche in a hierarchy ecosystem in order to establish a food chain to support all life on earth.
 
Thank you, Aloysium and Techno2000, for responding.

Aloysium: I too believe that God “brought into existence” various forms of living things, and that land animals “appeared”, but, as I see you recognise, that description applies as well to evolution as to creationism. Can you be a bit more specific as how they came into existence. That’s the essential difference. Later you suggest that each new creation appears by “developing from a seed, utilizing the information derived from its parents to eventually grow physically to be itself, be it plant or animal or human.” Although you insist that it is not Darwinian, you seem to agree that it looks very similar - would an observer with a microscope be able to spot the difference between your idea of creation and mine, or is the difference, as you seem to be trying to explain, theological or philosophical, but not physical? You conclude by discussing what form of creation might be more or less “difficult” for God. That does not make sense in terms of God’s omnipotence; whatever he does is ineffably simple.

Techno2000: Thank you too. But are you speaking metaphorically? Had some earlier creature been watching, how might he have seen the ‘hand-crafting’ from clay? Are you suggesting that God took some kind of human form in order to dig up and mould the clay, and then ‘breathe’ on it? Or is that metaphorical, so perhaps whales formed from clay in situ, and then burrowed their way out into the sea?
 
I have no reason to doubt that the story of creation Genesis originated with Adam and that it was passed down from him through successive generations of what were to eventually be the Jews, from whom Jesus would be born to save all God’s children. So six days would be how it was explained to Adam.

This discussion has taken place before. My view is that a day refers not so much to a period of time, which is a more recent invention, but a collection of activities. There is no night to the first week; the morning signals a new creation, built on the old. The creatures that inhabit the earth, are from the earth that had previously been made new from nothing.

As to timelines and what is accepted by most scientists, the story of Gerard Gierlinski, a Polish paleontologist is an interesting not uncommon one in all fields of science that illustrates the contentiousness that parallels that found in these threads.

Multi-celled were created ex nihilio utilizing the “information” contained in atoms and molecules, what they are as shapes of electrochemical forces which interact to produce the anatomical structure and physiological processes that characterize organisms. These organisms are a form of existence as are the individual atoms which come together to form the new whole.

I was using your comment to illustrate how random physical changes that occur outside of the unity of a living being are universally destructive. That’s why we put on sun screen, don’t gargle with Agent Orange and don’t actively try to conceive once we get into middle age. Bacteria with anitbiotic resistance that appears to have developed recently for example was found in a cave that had been closed off for millions of years. What we have is a trait that bacteria have had, I’d say from their beginnings, to maintain a balance in nature, to keep molds at bay. These genes were inactivated by random mutations in some bacteria, but can be distributed through plasmids. Molds, in turn produce penecillin to maintain their side of the equation. This all speaks to creation rather than evolution.

As to natural selection; it’s merely a fancy term to describe survival, a way death mops things up that don’t work the way they were made to work. It’s like going to doctors to complain about a ringing of the ears and they diagnose tinnitus.
 
Last edited:
Really? - So when I drop a ball it sometimes does not fall?

Still clutching to those experiments? I have asked over and over is that the best evidence? You dodged. Now you are back to these two so I am now convinced that is all you have.

Maybe your sources are lying to you.

I am confident in the programming of life as the best explanations for our observations. I predict it will only get stronger.
 
Last edited:
I don’t want to speak for anyone but myself.

There is no disagreement with the science although it is at its earliest stages, and which unfortunately comes wrapped in theories of evolution.

To differentiate the two visions:
  • I believe life started each individual intact and whole, first as single cells, followed by multicellular plants and animals, not as collections, but living systems, one in themselves and relating to one another and their environment. There was no gradual build up resulting from glitches in the genome. Speciation could occur through random mutation but by deletion of gene effect. The accumulation of mistakes to the point that a functional gene is produced sounds fantastical.
  • rather than diversity determined by natural selection, I see creative acts of God, either directly with the creation of a new form (felines and canines) or shaped through the instincts which attract mates with a common vision of beauty (aka - peacock).
We don’t see evolution through a microscope; it is a framework into which the data is incorporated making it coherent. We see what we believe, and a big challenge to the acquisition of new knowledge lies in freeing ourselves of these beliefs which ultimately define the data, and see things in a more comprehensive fashion, to think outside the box as they say.
 
Last edited:
Looking at the evidence we have two options:

common features mean common ancestry.
-or-
common features mean common designer.

We see the broad classes described in Genesis, plants, flying things, swimming things, and land based things.

These are up higner on the Linnaeus scale. From these prototypes, the programming and base makeup can allow all the different variations we see today. (see my genetic piano post here)

Imagine a sort of rolling out from information and programming.

Of course we do not know how God created these forms. Since He exists outside of our frame of reference we probably will never know.

What is IDvolution?
IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.

Arrows show information flow.
 
We are getting clues though with stem cell research. They have the potential to be any cell in the body. Communications tell them what program to run to become a specific cell.
 
buffalo said:
Really? - So when I drop a ball it sometimes does not fall?
Click to expand...
The current theory of gravity (General Relativity) works very well on the large scale, that is for anything from your ball to the entire universe. It does not work well at the quantum scale because Einstein ignored some quantum effects when he developed the theory. That is a very big problem when something very massive is also very small. A black hole or the initial universe at the very start of the Big Bang are both cases in point. GR breaks down in both cases because it does not allow for quantum effects. Hence the need for quantum gravity.

In many ways it is similar to the Black Body problem (aka Ultraviolet catastrophe) at the end of the 19th century, only for gravity.
Still clutching to those experiments? I have asked over and over is that the best evidence? You dodged. Now you are back to these two so I am now convinced that is all you have.
Click to expand...
Those experiments still work, despite what you think of them. Why should I bother finding other examples when you have nothing substantial to show against them? As to “best evidence” we will need to agree a common definition of “best”.
Maybe your sources are lying to you.
Click to expand...
No they are not. It is mainly YEC sources that lie, and to some extent ID sources. Because both ideas have so little scientific support, they have to lie to make themselves look scientific.
I am confident in the programming of life as the best explanations for our observations. I predict it will only get stronger.
Click to expand...
Your confidence is misplaced, I’m afraid. Your sources are carefully filtering what they show you so you are not getting the full picture. For example, AiG deliberately obfuscates many dates in scientific research that they cite.

rossum
 
You should know of course the big three all worship the very same God.

Our “beliefs” are reinforced by Revelation. Jesus, the son of God, put His stamp of approval on it. Only He fulfilled the many prophecies of the OT. The odds are something like this: Go into the desert blindfolded, and pick up on your first try the only red grain of sand, not once but twice.

Catholics and Christians are on very firm ground.
 
Gosh. I’m afraid I’m hopelessly confused by Aloysium’s explanations. Can someone help?

“Multi-celled were created ex nihilio utilizing the “information” contained in atoms and molecules.” What does this mean? That there is information in atoms and molecules that God used to create elephants? In what way were the elephants created ex nihilo. As adults? Or as zygotes in the wombs of some other kind of animal?

“I see creative acts of God, either directly with the creation of a new form (felines and canines) or shaped through the instincts which attract mates with a common vision of beauty (aka - peacock).” Does this mean you think the first cats and dogs were not born, but simply appeared? Or do you go along with Techno2000 and think they were first made of clay? And what is the alternative (“shaped through the instincts which attract mates”)? I really can’t make any sense out it at all.

This is not to say that it doesn’t make perfect sense; just that I personally don’t get it.

Buffalo: I think I understand you. A long time ago God made instantaneously a handful of living things whose genetic similarities give the illusion of common descent, but from then on life has proceeded along conventional evolutionary lines. Is that it? What did that first moment look like, I wonder? Suddenly, on a grassy plain, appeared a whole ecosystem full of animals where a moment before there was nothing? Is that it?
 
A few observations:
  1. The Bible, in this case Genesis, is 100% not a scientific text. Right? Why analyze it as if it were? Why bother?
  2. Science does science with tangible things, right? Mathematics helps in some cases.
That said, I am certainly not here to tell anyone they are less Catholic or just plain wrong about evolution, but aren’t there two (at least) sides to this? The ‘accepted wisdom’ by most of the public and scientists is that evolution happened. Does that make it beyond criticism? My answer is: Of course not.
  1. Some posters dismiss my writing because ‘I don’t know - really know - what I’m talking about.’ Or that I’ve accepted “lies.”
I’m not here to impress anybody since I’m just as invisible as the next poster.

It appears to me that some people think they have pulled back the curtain. They “know” how God did all this. And who doesn’t exist according to science, and please don’t play semantics games about science ‘being silent’ about God/gods.

So, in man’s giddy quest to pull back the curtain and yell “Aha! THIS IS HOW IT HAPPENED!!!” We have solved the basics and filled in a lot of details. And I have no doubt that others accept this with gladness because religion is poison and needs to die. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc. will agree with that.

That said, Let me be clear: This is a Catholic forum and Catholics cannot ignore Divine Revelation. For those who believe science is the only source of real knowledge, prepare to stop reading.

So, assuming God did something. Science is applied to God. How unreasonable and the wrong way to look at this. Here’s why:

Jesus Christ raised the dead on more than a few occasions. Lazarus died, and was beginning to decompose. He knew that without being told. He called Lazarus from the tomb. How did He do that? He’s God.

Jesus Christ cleansed the lepers, gave sight to the blind - literally. Did he use the latest technology? Of course not.

He’s on a boat, a storm comes up and the boat is in danger of being swamped. He is woken up and tells the storm and wind to stop. OK?

Now, some will just wave all this away as nonsense, but if a scientist from today was standing next to Him, what would he report? He saw nothing happen? Or how about miracles that happen today? The Church calls in any witnesses and experts it needs to. And investigates - even if it takes a year or more.

One last incident. A foreign sub was surfacing and accidently hit a Japanese surface ship. Water is pouring in and the Captain wants to save as many men as possible, but he dies. Another officer is trying to close an inner hatch door, prays to a Catholic nun for help, sees a bright light and closes the door. US Naval investigators are brought in.The sub is examined. Against tons of water pressure, they conclude that no one could have closed that door.
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
Buffalo: I think I understand you. A long time ago God made instantaneously a handful of living things whose genetic similarities give the illusion of common descent, but from then on life has proceeded along conventional evolutionary lines. Is that it? What did that first moment look like, I wonder? Suddenly, on a grassy plain, appeared a whole ecosystem full of animals where a moment before there was nothing? Is that it?
Click to expand...
Close. No, it did not proceed along conventional evo lines. From the beginning life used the initial programming to radiate, adapt and fill the environment.

Pope Benedict XVI called it “creative reason”.

St Augustines Prime Matter

Front Loading? Genetic Entropy? Complexity to simplicity?
The First Gene

The third axis: Information - the “breath” of God, Creative Reason.

St Thomas Aquinas and intelligent design
 
buffalo said:
You really didn’t answer the question. What would convince you?
Click to expand...
I said incompatibility with scripture argument is flawed, and so is the uselessness argument.
I said no one has given one main reason it is untrue other than that. What convinced you?

If the Pope or the Church said evolution, in accord with the consensus of the scientific community and its findings, hereby condemns evolution in terms of Adam coming from primates in terms of his pre-existing material, then I would gladly obey and be convinced.

“The Church does not forbid that…research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.”

When the Church changes its stance in Humani Generis, then I’ll be more convinced.

Like Benedict says, the dust / clay in Genesis need not be an elementary biological textbook on human origins. “The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are”

So until the Church renegs on that and says Benedict was wrong and it is about human origins, (which I don’t expect), then it stands that the dust origin does not cancel out evolution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top