Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

[Metis1]

You are confusing certain various hypotheses within the basic ToE, and Catholicism has never bought into the concept of absolute scriptural inerrancy with the exception of basic concepts found in the N.T. The issue of what may appear to be chance change can hypothetically be explained by God positing it that way. The ToE helps us to understand that basic process but it doesn’t explain what started that process.

When I first started teaching anthro, I had to spend a couple of lectures on why the ToE simply is not anti-Bible in any way, nor is it anti-“design”

 

[edwest211]

Richard Dawkins

"The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence Reveals a Universe Without Design
New York, Norton, 1987

“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selectioin overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design.”

“I want to persuade the reader, not just that the Darwinian world-view happens to be true, but that it is the only known theory that could, in principle, solve the mystery of our existence.” p xiv

"Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose. Physics books may be complicated, but …The objects and phenomena that a physics book describes are simpler than a single cell in the body of its author. And the author consists of trillions of those cells, many of them different from each other, organized with intricate architecture and precision-engineering into a working machine capable of writing a book. " p1-3.

“All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind’s eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If if can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.” p 5.

“Darwin made it possible to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” p6.

 

[Glark]

Jesus was talking to the people of his day, using illustrations they would clearly understand. Many teachers do the same today, using illustrations from Shakespeare or George Orwell or similar to clarify their points.

This is pathetic; it’s just flat-out denial of the plain meaning of Scripture. Name just one Church Fathers who supports your bizarre interpretation. How about a Catholic theologian?

If Moses, for example, was a myth, then chances are, the entire law given to Moses by God on Mt. Sinai is also a myth. How is it then that the Israelites, for thousands of years, took Mosaic Law super-seriously? Jesus himself was careful to adhere to Mosaic Law, as well.

I disagree. Many myths - the Iliad, for example, or the Morte D’Arthur - are full of very precise details

Please be so kind as to provide some examples of these “precise details”.

CCC 110

“110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.””

Which part of the paragraph above suggests that the historical books are mythical? It actually says “the TRUTH is differently presented in the various types of HISTORICAL writing”. You seem to have somehow confused truth with myth.

No? You announced in one post that all “The first seventeen books of the Old Testament - from Genesis to Esther - are clearly accounts of real, literal history”, but in support of your statement, a little later said, “Even Wikipedia describes Joshua to 2Maccabees as ‘the historical books’.” By selecting Wikipedia as your witness, you concede that Wikipedia does not consider the Pentateuch to be “historical”? No?

This is a small point, but you’re jumping to conclusions. Which part of my reference to Wikipedia says the Pentateuch is not considered historical?

The crossing of the Jordon.

Hang on, let me get this straight: You believe God created the entire universe out of nothing, can raise people from the dead, can convert bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in an instant, but you can’t believe that that same God can’t halt the flow of a little ol’ river for a couple of hours?

'Fraid not. Can you name one? I’ll read what he has to say.

Shelby Spong

 

[Glark]

Whenever a Darwinist has used the “fundamentalist” perjorative in these threads I’ve asked “What is a fundamentalist?” (about six times so far), but none of them has yet replied.

 

[Glark]

they don’t turn to serious theologians who have studied both the scriptures and the science on this

Serious theologians think evolution and the Bible are compatible? Surely you jest!

 

[Glark]

B

One of our greatest anthropologists was Fr. Pierre Teilhart deChardin (Jesuit), and he was the world’s foremost expert on Homo erectus when he was alive

Pierre Teihard de Chardin was a New Age nutter who remains a pin-up boy for the Church’s lunatic fringe.

and the only thing that got him in trouble with the Vatican was his concept of the “noosphere”.

You forgot to mention this:

The Vatican forbade de Chardin from writing or teaching on matters philosophical, banned his work, L’Energie Humaine, and prohibited him from publishing at least two other works. In 1957 the Church forbade any of his works from being held in any Catholic library, institution or bookshop and prohibited any of them from being translated into other languages. A decree of the Holy Office dated 30 June 1962, under the authority of Pope John XXIII, warned that “… it is obvious that in philosophical and theological matters, the said works [Teilhard’s] are replete with ambiguities or rather with serious errors which offend Catholic doctrine. That is why… the Rev. Fathers of the Holy Office urge all Ordinaries, Superiors, and Rectors… to effectively protect, especially the minds of the young, against the dangers of the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and his followers”.

P. T. de Chardin was also implicated in the Piltdown Man hoax.

 

[edwest211]

It is very unlikely you’ll get a reply. Psychological warfare has certain rules.

 

[Glark]

Wow, awesome story! Sounds like you got zapped with a taste of heaven! Thanks.

 

[Techno2000]

Wow, awesome story! Sounds like you got zapped with a taste of heaven! Thanks.

Yeah… he saw a Chink in the Armor an exploited it …Big Time!

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Bits and pieces…

UPB. The doctrine that if something is very unlikely, its impossible. This is bad maths and philosophically deceptive. There is a more than a quantitive difference between “very unlikely” and “impossible” that does not depend on number. Occasionally, the very unlikely actually occurs. The impossible cannot. What are the chances of my throwing a hundred dice on the ground, and them all turning up sixes? One chance in 6.5x10^77. It’s remote but it’s not impossible. What’s more, although we could almost guarantee the event occurring if we tossed all the dice 10^80 times, it is possible that it could occur the very first time I tried it. But how often would I have to throw the dice to achieve one single ‘seven’? I couldn’t. Ever. I couldn’t get it if a tossed the dice 10^10000 times, and there is no possibility of it turning up accidentally the first time I tossed the dice.

Theologians thinking the bible and evolution are compatible. Brendan Purcell. Christoph Cardinal Schönborn. George Murphy. etc.

Who on this thread has quoted an evolutionist out of context in an attempt to show that he didn’t really believe in it? Techno2000 (Patterson, Gould), Glark (Lewontin), ericc (Williams).

“You believe God created the entire universe out of nothing, can raise people from the dead, can convert bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in an instant, but you can’t believe that that same God can’t halt the flow of a little ol’ river for a couple of hours?” Wrong, of course. As usual you confuse what God could do with what he actually did do.

Buffalo: Don’t go on about proof. Science doesn’t do proof.
Buffalo: Science by consensus. Yes; that’s exactly how science is. Sorry.

Glark: “I’ve never heard of any Christian who thinks the entire Bible is to be read literally. Some Scriptures are obviously symbolic or allegorical.” Oh good. We agree on something. However, I think Noah’s Flood is symbolic or allegorical, and you think it is to be read literally. How shall we decide who is right?

What is a fundamentalist? One whose defence of his position consists mostly of the denigration of his opponents and little actual consideration of his own point of view.

 

[curious_cath]

Okay, I don’t question that God may communicate directly through your spirit. I think you are lucky that you had those experiences. But never forget that all this may come using your own faculties and psyche. You even said you survived because of that voice. You got an extremes message in an extreme situation, perhaps saving your life. That kind of psyche is part of God’s plan for the humankind developed in evolution.

 

[buffalo]

Still waiting for your answer.

Evolution has foresight?

It is guided?

And not by chance?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

God has foresight.
God ordained the laws of nature.
God ordains the outcome of chance events.

 

[buffalo]

More obfuscation. You stated I misrepresented evolution. Now I ask you directly to answer these questions with a yes or no.

Evolution has foresight?

It is guided?

And not by chance?

 

[Richca]

[continued]

I’m certain that given a whole world of warm watery places and a couple of million years, such an organism is not only possible, but inevitable. As I have said before, given enough tries, throwing ten sixes in a row is not unlikely, it is inevitable. But only provided the initial conditions provide those opportunities. This is where I see the hand of God, not in the self assembly itself, but in the provision of the initial conditions.

A couple of thoughts on the throwing of the die which it seems is often used as an example for the probability of evolutionary theory. First, probability as in the throwing of a die does not exactly equal certainty or inevitability. The very word ‘probability’ generally refers to something likely or unlikely to happen for instance, not that it is certain to happen. For example, the chances of throwing a six or any other number of the die on one throw is a fraction, 1/6 or 16.66…%. The decimal places go on to infinity. No matter how many throws of the die, the probability mathematically considered of throwing any one number, for example a 6, will never equal 1 or 100%. Albiet, the more throws the more it is probable or likely a 6 will turn up eventually.

Secondly, you state ‘given enough tries, throwing ten sixes in a row is not unlikely, it is inevitable.’ Beyond what I just mentioned above and according to the mathematical probabilities of throwing a die, do more throws of a die actually increase or decrease the probability of getting the same digits in a row (ten 6’s) or any other pattern? In this vein, in ‘Catholicism and Evolution’, Fr. Michael Chaberek says:

‘The larger the probabilistic resources (more throws of a die) the less probable it will be to get the same digits in a row, or any other pattern. With each extra throw, the total number of appearances of each digit will tend to approximate more closely 1/6 of the total number of throws. This fact diminishes (not increases) the possibility of getting any spectacular, that is, meaningful outcome.’

Without getting into the mathematical computations here, I trust Fr. Chaberek did his homework and what he says makes common sense to me. Thus, it seems that according to mathematical probability theory concerning ‘chance or random’ events as in the case of throwing a die or evolutionary theory, time, whether in millions or billions of years, does not favor evolutionary theory but rather diminishes the probability of the supposed ‘chance’ events to have occurred in any meaningful pattern or design which we observe today whether on earth or in the heavens.

 

[IWantGod]

God has foresight.

God ordained the laws of nature.

God ordains the outcome of chance events.

Dam you’re good!!!

 

[buffalo]

Except when God ordains the outcome, they are no longer chance but directed. His statement is self refuting.

 

[IWantGod]

God only ordains the qualitative nature of the effect, thus allowing that effect to come about by natural means while at the same time determining the nature of it through the laws he has established.

I see no contradiction.

 

[buffalo]

Is it chance then?

 

[Richca]

[continued]

It was not Aloysium who said what I quote below, but I believe it could have been, and that he, I and all good Catholics will be happy to concur:

“When we read the account of Creation in Genesis we risk imagining that God was a magician, complete with an all powerful magic wand. But that was not so. He created beings and he let them develop according to the internal laws with which He endowed each one, that they might develop, and reach their fullness. He gave autonomy to the beings of the universe at the same time in which He assured them of his continual presence, giving life to every reality. And thus Creation has been progressing for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until becoming as we know it today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives life to all beings. The beginning of the world was not a work of chaos that owes its origin to another, but derives directly from a supreme Principle who creates out of love. The Big Bang theory, which is proposed today as the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of a divine creator but depends on it. Evolution in nature does not conflict with the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings who evolve.”

A man-made and concocted creation story . Is there any truth to it? Anybody with an ounce of common sense can see that this is all highly conjectural and based on innumerable uncertainties, a vivid imagination, and uncertain scientific theories all or many of which could be erroneous. That doesn’t inspire much confidence. What we have here is literally a myth is it not?

Thank you but no thank you. I’ll stick with God’s own creation story and his word for his word is certain and without error.