Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
We have to go further back to the animals presented to Adam. He named them and they were the first created. The primary form (some call kinds) were sufficient to generate everything that has lived and is living today.
Click to expand...
I think the very first elephants lived millions of years after the very first lizards, and that the very first lizards lived millions of years after the very first fish. Do you agree with that or not? Just Yes or No will do.
 
What about Section 63 of the International Theological Commission Texts?
 
benjamin1973 said:
Not only is there an observer effect, it propagates back through time, which indicates that the Universe has some kind of omniscience and is time-omnipotent in a sense.
Click to expand...
To me it means that things come as a form of being in themselves, new system having distinct properties and made up of components, which include time and space, united to form this new whole. An event becomes a particle in itself, say a photon, when it is separated and is no longer simply a wave in the whole which is a beam of light occurs within a laboratory experiment. The events that occur in that lab at the time of the experiment do so within its totality which involves a period of time, a sequence of events. There is actually a laboratory containing the experimental equipment doing what it is designed to do, existing as itself. Those events are not causally tied together in a temporal sequence but around the purpose of the experiment, to pull a photon out of its existence which would be otherwise united in the wholeness of the beam of electromagnetic energy. So it doesn’t matter whether the measurement is taken before or after the light has passed through the slits. We are the causal agents, having free will, that create this scenario, so it is more than an observer effect. We are not merely passive recipients but also act upon the universe, changing it as we do so. Everything everywhere exists; it is as itself or part of something bigger, relating with what is other to it. Atoms are a simple form of being, amoebas are far more complex, but are also one being, and we ourselves, who can know all this are the height of complexity of all that we know; and yet each of us is one being. God is He who brings all time and space and everything in it into being, and therefore knows all from His eternity. The universe contains an infinite number of beings, in themselves and in communion with each other. The universe cannot be omniscient, being the object of omniscience. We who can know, do so because we are brought into being essentially is relational beings in the form of a knower knowing the known The person is a self-other relational being; we are united within our selves, with others and with God, in love - the giving of ourselves for the good of the other. We might say that within the Beatific Vision, the person, individually and collectively as God’s Church, through Christ is brought into communion with God and that it will be there that universe being itself, as it is known and loved by God would be one with His omniscience.
 
Last edited:
I think God is living, all of us have some contact with it, and the people of the past, including Biblical writers, were expressing their understanding of the same thing we sometimes reach for.

I think the miracle is more in the fact that there is existence, rather than a lack of it, and not in stories about big boats with animal parades. I think the mystery is embedded in the fabric of all existence, not on special days, in special buildings, or spoken by special people.

I think the value of the Bible is in the definition of moral and spiritual truth, but not so much in the historical details. Even the life of Jesus must have been complex, full of trials and mistakes-- because it is said that God was human in Jesus, but nobody is human who is perfect. Perfect in imperfection, I think Jesus must have been.

Anyway, as you can see, I’m unlikely to find a church that embraces my views. I’m okay with that, though.
 
At boundary conditions, identifying things becomes very hard. How would you separate God from God’s Creation from God’s will, or the expression of God’s will? Are they distinct, or are they different modes of expression of a single Truth?
 
buffalo said:
no … (forum does not allow a yes or no)
Click to expand...
Well in that case, my sincere apologies. Most proponents of ID support a more or less continuous creative act throughout the history of life, the different ‘kinds’ appearing as required.

However, given your belief that elephants, lizards and fish all appeared on earth within a couple of million years of each other (or do you narrow it down to six days?), then may I ask how you account for their very wide separation in the fossil record? The earliest fish about 550 million years ago, the earliest lizards about 300 million years ago, and the earliest elephants 40 million years ago?

I have read your comment about the weakness of the fossil record, and in detail there is some truth in it, but I chose these organisms specifically for their wide separation. There are millions of fossil fish from the 500 million years before any elephant fossils: do you think this is entirely due to the paucity of the discoveries?

An original creative act of several thousands of different ‘kinds’ of organism positively demands that the remains of these organisms be found as more or less contemporaneous in the fossil record. The absence of such an assembly is powerful evidence (not ‘proof’, of course!) against their co-creation over a relatively short time. Do you agree?
 
Last edited:
All well and good. We Evolutionists find no quarrel with that. However, I am sorry you have not continued to find support in the International Theological Commission. In case other readers have not pursued your theme, may I remind you that you quoted Section 69, which discusses the differences between evolution and intelligent design, and concludes “In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so.”

This is not a denial of evolution in any way. It is a denial of a purely mechanistic view of the universe that, as far as I have read, nobody on this forum adheres to. What, in fact, does the International Theological Commission think about the truth, or otherwise, of evolution? Section 63!
  1. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. 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. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution."
 
buffalo said:
Creation is the initial act, and God saw it was good. Intervention is correcting mistakes made during the initial act, afterwards, and keep having to do it.
Click to expand...
That is one of my problems with the ID designer. The ID designer did not get it right to begin with and constantly has to intervene to fix things that were wrong in the initial attempt.

A competent designer would have got things right the first time and not need to intervene to correct any mistakes.

Evolution is not a competent designer as it has no foresight: it can only react to the here-and-now. When the here-and-now changes, then evolution has to adjust things to suit the new situation.

rossum
 
Section 63 is, of course, an unequivocal endorsement of the probability (not ‘proof’ of course) of the accuracy of abiogenesis, evolution, the common ancestry of man and microbe, and the emergence of man from a humanoid population. There is no suggestion of the literal truth of Genesis.

So what was the point of your quotation? To insist on God’s supremacy in the world? Surely not, as none of us here have denied that. No, it was the usual creationist technique of misrepresenting people who support evolution as people who don’t.

You know that. I know that, ratio and rossum and Benjamin know that, so why do you do it? Is the paucity of your argument such that your only defence of it is dishonesty?

I only joined in on this thread at Part 4, so I cannot speak for earlier iterations, but I have thought we Evolutionists had made some headway in teaching Creationists how to support an opinion.
  1. Avoid Aunt Sallys.
    a) Don’t build a definition of evolution that no evolutionist would agree to, and then knock it down.
    b) Don’t build a definition of science that no scientist would agree to, and then claim that evolution doesn’t fit it.
    c) Don’t claim that “because you haven’t seen it, it can’t be true”
    d) Don’t claim that “because you can’t prove it, it can’t be true.”
  2. Don’t misrepresent.
    a) Don’t quote selectively with the sole purpose of claiming that people who support evolution actually don’t.
    b) Don’t quote selectively from evolutionist arguments in order to claim that they define evolution differently from the actual intent of the author.
    c) Don’t maintain that practices which apply only to some areas of science must apply to all of it.
  3. Don’t ask unnecessary questions.
    a) Don’t ask questions to which you do not want to know the answer merely to show that not all evolutionists know everything about evolution.
    b) Don’t ask questions in the erroneous belief that a question in itself either weakens one argument or strengthens another.
  4. Do explain what you believe.
    a) Do explain what you think creationism really involves, and how you interpret Genesis.
    b) Do give evidence from ‘the teaching of the Catholic Church’ or theologians you respect who support your arguments.
    c) Do give evidence from the physical world (e.g. genetics, palaeology, morphology, embryology) which supports your argument.
  5. Do some research.
    a) Before asking a question, which may not be able to be answered in 3200 letters, find out all you can so that you properly understand what you are asking.
    b) Check how current your ideas are by finding information from the last fifty years or so in preference to the previous fifty.
  6. Do answer questions.
    a) Try not to be evasive. Evolutionists really want to know what exactly creationists believe, not to trick them.
    b) Answering questions is an extremely useful way of helping you crystallise your own ideas, and presenting them clearly and succinctly.
 
Last edited:
The way I see it:
Hugh_Farey said:
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.
Click to expand...
The wooden chair I am sitting on is related to the table that supports my computer only in that they are made of wood. They both were created by an artisan out of wood.
Hugh_Farey said:
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.
Click to expand...
Humanity could be older than that according to some new findings. That population would not have been humanoid, and arose from one man and one woman. Those guys lived really long lives and being genetically pretty much perfectly suited to their environment, would have been allowed sibling marriages.
Hugh_Farey said:
the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens
Click to expand...
The decisive factor in human origins was the creation of a human spirit that to fully realize its potential, required an adequate brain size and structure.
Hugh_Farey said:
the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.
Click to expand...
The term consciousness is even more vague than evolution. I would say that everything is conscious in the sense that it is and is known by its Creator. We have a very sophisticated consciousness rooted in eternity, that is in the moment through which time passes. It is our free will that allows us to love, to know the good and give ourselves to it in our relationships with one another and with God. It also is the cause of the past-present-future that defines the now. That now is finite in the sense that it does not encompass all time and all space. It is also in a state of transformation, time being a journey towards God. Along that way we become closer or further from being our true selves, what we were made to be - Christ-like. He is the Way in which we grow. In humanity, the universe seeks to know God.
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
At boundary conditions, identifying things becomes very hard. How would you separate God from God’s Creation from God’s will, or the expression of God’s will? Are they distinct, or are they different modes of expression of a single Truth?
Click to expand...
In the Trinity, it is God the Father who begets the Son in an eternal act of ontological Breath - a Divine act of mutual Love, in which the Son reciprocates by breathing out, giving Himself to The Father. The eternal, out of time and encompassing all time, Foundation of all there is, is Love, the true essence of Existence. There is One God from which all creation comes into being, through an act of His will. It is the Second person of the Trinity, the Son, the Word of God who brought forth all creation and became one with it, that is the Way back to God.

I think to answer the question we must look at ourselves, since we are the creature we can know best and immediately. We are each individual and yet part of and related to something bigger. Our selves reflect the relational nature of God, we relate to what is other to us. We can enter into communion with what is other through a giving of ourselves. Alternatively, we have the choice to use what is other for a lesser good we have embraced. That leads us further from the truth. We can approximate seeing things as God sees them, participating within a loving relationship, whether the object is matter, a plant or animal, another human being or God. There exists the other; our being is finite and not self-created. We are solitary but not isolated, the latter condition the outcome of a disconnect with the Love that underlies all creation.

The Triune Godhead is other to its creation, which it lovingly brings into existence and is destined to return that love in and through Jesus Christ, who is the incarnation of the Word by which all is brought into being and maintained by the Holy Spirit of God.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, Aloysium. The International Theological Commission is not the word of God, and you don’t need to believe what they say. My own view is that both your chair and table are literally genetically related to you in exactly the same way as your cousins are, but I respect your disagreement. I do not respect mischievous attempts to claim that the International Theological Commission does not support current scientific thinking when it very clearly does.
 
As far as I am aware, the greatest attempt at Creation as a competitive scientific theory (regardless of how good of one it is, which opinions vary on) is Walt Brown’s “In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood”. I even think it can be found for free on an official website online.

Of course, Creation doesn’t normally attempt to be explained as a scientific theory, whereas evolution does (therein lies the difference).
 
Last edited:
Some errors to correct:

God is not a mere being to be holed into some gap. He is being itself. Not merely a loving God but Love itself.
He is perfect and makes no mistakes. How He did things is right and just.

Jesus is perfect as in He was sinless.
 
rossum said:
The ID designer did not get it right to begin with and constantly has to intervene to fix things that were wrong in the initial attempt.

A competent designer would have got things right the first time and not need to intervene to correct any mistakes.
Click to expand...
Continuing work does not imply previous work was a mistake.
That is your misunderstanding.
 
After God’s creative act was finished and He rested administration began.

Flume experiments show how moving water separates, sorts and stratifies. One can see this in action right at the beach at the waters edge. DIg a hole in the sand and watch.

The question is how many original kinds were there?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top