Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

[rossum]

How about’ “But from the beginning of creation, God created them male and female” (Mark 10:6)? Jesus says humans existed at the “beginning of creation”, which is totally incompatible with evolution.

And is totally incompatible with the Bible as well. Adam and Eve were made on day six, between 120 and 144 hours after the beginning of creation. Both evolution and the Bible agree that there was a period of time when there was not male and female. They disagree over how long that period of time lasted.

rossum

 

[Glark]

How do you know “from the beginning” means “from the beginning of all creation” or “from the beginning of man’s creation?” Darwinism is compatible with the second interpretation.

Your favoured second interpretation renders the verse as: "But from the beginning of (man’s) creation, God created them male and female. " Are you serious?

 

[Glark]

Do you have an argument to make here? Or just name-calling?

My argument is … You’re extremely naive if you think origins-science isn’t heavily influenced by atheistic philosophy.

 

[Glark]

An engineer can build a camera - that’s called intelligent design. Having built a camera, how would an engineer then go about connecting it to a human brain?

Apparently, mindless nature can build cameras too! But seriously, this is as absurd as claiming a forest can build a log cabin.

 

[Glark]

However, in the real world H2O is far more common because chemistry has its rules and is not “mindless chance”.

This is an argument for “Designed-by-God”. Chaos can’t make rules, let alone enforce them universally.

 

[Glark]

And is totally incompatible with the Bible as well. Adam and Eve were made on day six, between 120 and 144 hours after the beginning of creation. Both evolution and the Bible agree that there was a period of time when there was not male and female. They disagree over how long that period of time lasted.

Apparently, the Catholic Church’s theologians think “the beginning of creation” can mean billions of years AFTER the beginning of creation!

“From some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered into the Temple of God.” - Pope Paul VI, 1972.

 

[Aloysium]

the issue of consciousness in particular. Not only can you not study it genetically, you can’t really identify which animals or other physical systems have it.

You’ve mentioned this before and I’ve attempted a reply, but there is no short of the long of it.

the relationships among fossils, and the explanation of why they end up like that, is compelling

How is random chemical activity compelling. It’s simply saying there is no cause, which would be the same explanation for the existence of the universe - it is and that is all there is to it. Chaos of the gaps is how I see it.

The evolutionary narrative also explains some human behaviors in a way that religion fails to.

Actually, religion does explain it better. One does not need to appeal to evolution to understand that since women bear the children that their attitude to sex will in general be different from that of men.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

How do you know “from the beginning” means “from the beginning of all creation” or “from the beginning of man’s creation?” Darwinism is compatible with the second interpretation.

Your favoured second interpretation renders the verse as: "But from the beginning of (man’s) creation, God created them male and female. " Are you serious?

Yes.

LeafByNiggle:

Do you have an argument to make here? Or just name-calling?

My argument is … You’re extremely naive if you think origins-science isn’t heavily influenced by atheistic philosophy.

So, name-calling it is. Got it.

If I am naive so are the recent popes and the Catechism that have also agreed that Genesis does not preclude evolution. I am in good company.

 

[Aloysium]

My argument is … You’re extremely naive if you think origins-science isn’t heavily influenced by atheistic philosophy.

The standard theory of evolution is actually a collection of philosophical approaches to the reality that the earth has changed since its inception. One can easily identify materialist-reductionist, naturalist-spiritualist trends in how it puts together the evidence which is generally agreed to.

If one sees the world as matter, it follows that in time it has moulded itself into nature as we observe it. It is a belief that filters out any evidence to the contrary creating a picture of objective reality that might be termed a shared delusion.

Evolution fits with a belief in reincarnation, where rebirth is understood as leading to progression. Beliefs in Gaia or Mother Nature, view the world as a living entity from which individual forms like ourselves, emanate. The sacredness of the world is seen as being in its nature rather than as a reflection of God’s glory.

An atheism that is not nihilistic requires some sort of explanation for existence and clings to Darwinism as a foundation for a world-view that excludes God and gods in general.

 

[Aloysium]

recent popes and the Catechism that have also agreed that Genesis does not preclude evolution

Let’s be specific, as has been addressed numerous times, repeatedly in different threads, they are not talking about the theory of evolution.

 

[rossum]

Apparently, the Catholic Church’s theologians think “the beginning of creation” can mean billions of years AFTER the beginning of creation!

And the inspired writers of Genesis said over 120 hours after the beginning. Do you disagree with them as well?

rossum

 

[benjamin1973]

Animals don’t make themselves either. Not sure what your point is. . .

 

[benjamin1973]

How is random chemical activity compelling. It’s simply saying there is no cause, which would be the same explanation for the existence of the universe - it is and that is all there is to it. Chaos of the gaps is how I see it.

Random chemical activity given the dynamics of our Universe is extremely compelling as an explanation for how physical systems form and persist. It is not particularly useful as an explanation for consciousness, or as a framework for purpose.

Actually, religion does explain it better. One does not need to appeal to evolution to understand that since women bear the children that their attitude to sex will in general be different from that of men.

Really? Okay, please give religion’s explanation. “God made it that way,” by the way, I don’t accept as a very useful explanation, unless you have additional info on why or how He chose to do it that way.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Let’s be specific, as has been addressed numerous times, repeatedly in different threads, they are not talking about the theory of evolution.

They are talking about some form of the theory of evolution. As far as the simple facts of common descent and biological forms transforming into very different biological forms over many generations - that is acceptable. As Pope John Paul II said in his 1996 address:

And to tell the truth, rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theories of evolution. The use of the plural is required here…

The difficulty with this thread is that there is great reluctance to recognize the variations in the theory and to treat all versions of the theory the same. Therefore we end up with endless arguments that go nowhere. And they will continue to go nowhere until a real effort is made to understand these differences.

One version of the theory states that species turn into other species through many generations. This is the weakest form of the theory because it makes no claim about natural selection or divine intervention or anything. It just states that reproductive descendants can end up being completely different species. This form has not been condemned by the Church. One many challenge it on scientific grounds if one has evidence. All scientific theories are open to being challenged. That is the scientific method. But I don’t believe this weak form of the theory can be challenged on theological grounds - at least not staying totally within the realm of Catholic teaching.

A stronger version of the theory states that natural selection appears to shape the changes that occur as species evolve into other species. This form also has not been condemned by the Church, as long we have a proper understand of what it means for natural selection to “appear to shape the changes.” This does not mean natural selection does shape the changes in any philosophical sense. It means natural selection appears to shape the changes if we consider only what can be observed. This is an important philosophical point. The appearance and the “philosophical reality” can be two different things. But science, by its own rules of the scientific method, must be limited to what can be gathered by appearances. Of course this means more than mere first impressions. It means any observation now or in the future that bears on the question.

In a sense, science does not care, nor should it care, what is real. For all of reality could be a simulation, as in “The Matrix.” But until one manages to go outside the matrix, the science based on what we observe within it is the appropriate science to consider. If evolution is actually directed step-by-step by the mind of God in real time and if He does it in such a way that natural selection appears by every scientific test to be the cause of all the changes, then it is still the right thing to do scientifically to posit that natural selection “appears” to cause evolutionary changes.

 

[Aloysium]

There has to be an organising principle that brings complex molecules together, with their self-correcting properties. Randomness brings about disorder. There is something at work which not only balances but acts beyond the influences of entropy. That principle also addresses your questions regarding consciousness. In humanity it is the knowing-knower-known nature of our relational spirit which brings together the being of all our bodily components within the world, into a whole, in the form of the person, who is individual and in turn a part of something bigger. Each of us acts, perceives, feels and thinks as one being, fundamentally in union within ourselves and the world, through love.

I have to stop since this could go on for very many pages.

Just as we have livers and hearts and brains and bones and kidneys and a gastrointestinal system like our “brethren” animals, we possess passions, desires and fears. Our eternal nature heightens them exponentially and when we place them over reason, following certain paths can make us demonic. There is nothing wrong with some animals acting in accordance with their nature and using what in human terms would be promiscuity and rape to procreate. We are called to love one another and this makes such behaviour wrong. To go on about sexuality would drail this thread. There is likely a thread addressing these sorts of issues on another subforum on CAF.

 

[Aloysium]

Being an apologist for science must stem from a belief in its validity, and perhaps a wanting to participate in the shared understanding of one’s culture. It can be a difficult road to follow in cases like that of evolution, where a theory is actually a philosophical perspective on history. It cannot be neutral or objective. One should be alert to the risk of damaging the faith that constitutes our relationship with God. Whatever one’s understanding about evolution, since it is one’s own eternal soul on the line and there is no one to convince, I would think it primary to be familiar with the teachings of the Church. Beyond that, the science does not matter, unless of course, science is one’s thing. I think it important to point out where I feel people’s understanding is in conflict with the truth, and hopefully to show there is a better way of looking at things.

 

[edwest211]

A well thought out reply. And this is consistent with a worldview that has been promoted in other contexts. I’ll call it ‘earth worship’ so as to dissuade the curious. And it is promoted by scientists as a recipe: planet with water and the ‘building blocks of life’ (amino acids), right distance from its sun = life will appear.

It seems that only an orthodox view of evolution is observed here. Other considerations are either ignored or it’s a ‘stay on message’ situation, which repeats indefinitely.

 

[qui_est_ce]

They would still be reproducing and surviving all the while its random mutation enhanced brothers and sisters are waiting millions of years for evolution to make them superior.

The okapi.

(16 characters).

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

They would still be reproducing and surviving all the while its random mutation enhanced brothers and sisters are waiting millions of years for evolution to make them superior.

The okapi.

(16 characters).

I guess the okapi is a freak of evolution …because they should have died out millons of years ago.

 

[rossum]

I guess the okapi is a freak of evolution …because they should have died out millons of years ago.

So, you still do not understand how evolution works. Animals go extinct for reasons. If those reasons do not apply, then they do not go extinct. Giraffes tend to live in open plains with few trees. Okapi tend to live in more heavily wooded areas. Since the two species live in different areas they do not compete, so Okapi will not be driven to extinction by competition with giraffes.

This is Ecology 101.

rossum