Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So its an appeal to authority. I am more convinced by reasoned arguments and intuitive understandings of how things work, but I get what you’re saying although of a different mind.
 
Aloysium said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Random means without any detectable causal relationship with anything else that is observable.
Click to expand...
There is always a cause and they can be multiple and/or not observable.

If I understand correctly, you are suggesting is that God controls the processes involved in gene mutation.
Click to expand...
Sure. Why not?
And it would make sense then that as we have damaged our relationship with Him, His creative/maintaining graces are diminished and we are prone to the degeneration inherent in matter, left to its own properties.

I think, given that scenario that the first man from whom all humanity derives, was made with a perfect genome under an eternal spirit, and did not emerge from the mating of two hominids having imperfect genes, as evolution would assert, with animal souls.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “perfect?” Perfection implies a pre-existing evaluation scale. There are many such scales. For example:

1: The ability to leave as many offspring as possible in the shortest amount of time.
2. The ability to defend yourself against other animals that want to eat you.
3. The ability to live on the least amount of food.
4. The ability to be happy.
5. The ability to resist bacterial infection.
6. The ability to hold your breath under water.
7. The ability to fly.
8. The ability to attract a mate.
9. The ability to know and follow the will of God.
10. The ability to play music.

Depend on which evaluation scale you pick, the definition of “perfect” can be quite different. I think the kind of perfection you mention would relate to items 4 and 9. Darwinism does not say anything about perfection. It only refers to suitability on the scale defined by items 1,2,3,5, and 8, sort of.
 
Last edited:
No, I’m not even making an argument but informing you of what is meant by “randomness” in terms of biological evolution as told through a professional. It’s literally just defining terms.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
1: The ability to leave as many offspring as possible in the shortest amount of time.
2. The ability to defend yourself against other animals that want to eat you.
3. The ability to live on the least amount of food.
4. The ability to be happy.
5. The ability to resist bacterial infection.
6. The ability to hold your breath under water.
7. The ability to fly.
8. The ability to attract a mate.
9. The ability to know and follow the will of God.
10. The ability to play music.
Click to expand...
In the original garden 2,3,5,6,7, and 8 would not apply.

Once in this world with God’s ongoing assistance:
1 was taken care of since the first persons lived many hundreds of years capable of procreation and given the lack of genetic anomalies, there was no risk of in-breeding.
2 & 3 were dealt with through our working together; it is more a matter of the spirit and an advantage of being a loving community
4 true lasting happiness arises from doing God’s will
5 would have been an element of our living in a balanced environment and an unfallen world where bacteria were not a danger - this quickly changed.
6 & 7 I’m not sure what you mean, but we are built for the water.
8 is more of a problem in modern urban society where in spite of there being millions of people around, we don’t know each other. Where Love is not the rule, it can become a matter of presenting the best illusion.
9 This has to do with the spirit. We knew the will of God at the beginning. Following the fall it became harder to discern, and the more sin prevails, the more difficult it becomes. As to the ability to do God’s will, that is unchanged - free will. Obviously the choices and expectations differ, but always boil down to a yes or a no in any particular situation.
10 As one of the fruits in the garden that is our being in the world, a musical ability is a grace that differs from person to person. We all have different gifts and challenges. Even in this world, perfection is achieved to the extent that we are loving persons, making the most by sharing what God gives us.

I imagine there is a profound difference in our understanding of what constitutes fundamental reality.
 
Last edited:
Kei said:
Ernst Mayr says this, “When it is said that mutation or variation is random, the statement simply means that there is no correlation between the production of new genotypes and the adaptational needs of an organism in a given environment.”
Click to expand...
Revisiting your quote because you consider it important enough to mention it again, I must say that I found it a bit difficult because it defines randomness in terms of a negative relationship between genetic mutation and necessity. I too do not believe one exists, although those who believe God guided an evolutionary process might think one did.

I think I agree with him. Random mutations just happen and would do so not for any other purpose than that they do.
 
Last edited:
Kei said:
Randomness as it refers to biological evolution does not mean without purpose, but without biological purpose to that end. As in, there is no biological reason for the mutations to occur specifically in that way.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure exactly what you mean to say, but yes I agree, there would be no biological purpose to evolution, and that is why I call myself a creationist. The purpose we see in the universe, our own existence being that of which we are most certain, is not revealed through evolutionary theory, which sees things happening simply because they do with no correlation to anything else. What survives and procreates, survives and procreates. This is science?
 
Last edited:
Yeah that’s my position as well.

I mean. . . the Bible is what? Maybe 500 pages? You could write a book that thick just describing the reproductive behaviors of a single species. Of course there’s room for a lot of knowledge that isn’t contained in the Bible.

There’s some debate about whether to take this or that part of the Bible as figurative or literal. Did God literally come down to Earth in human form, mold clay in His human hands, and fooof! breathe life into Adam? Or is that passage just a more interesting way of saying something like “Ashes to ashes?,” an acknowledgement that something special happened when normally-inanimate matter found itself collected and animated in such a way that it can walk around and read Catholic forums?

In the end, obviously nobody can know 100%, but when you don’t know things for sure, it seems to me that the right thing to do is to look around and attempt to learn/relearn how we arrived at this point in time. I cannot tolerate the idea that the Creator of the Cosmos would be offended at that. I cannot believe that merciful God would say at judgment, “You were an honest, God-fearing and decent human being. You loved others, and taught them to love each other to the best of your ability. But you didn’t believe that I really made Adam in a single creative moment, so you will burn in hellfire for eternity.”

I’m much more inclined to the idea that God’s truth is writ all around us, and that scientific inquiry is therefore just an expression of the human desire to know more about the Universe that has been left for us to explore and wonder at.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
evolutionary theory, which sees things happening simply because they do with no correlation to anything else. What survives and procreates, survives and procreates. This is science?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Charles Darwin: Victorian Mythmaker

“Darwinism, as is shown by the current state of debate, is resistant to argument because it is resistant to fact. The worship of Darwin as a man, the attribution to him of insights and discoveries which were either part of the common scientific store of knowledge or were the discoveries of others, this is all necessary to bolster the religion of Darwinism.”

https://www.amazon.com/Charles-Darwin-Victorian-N-Wilson/dp/0062433490
 
buffalo said:
Charles Darwin: Victorian Mythmaker

“Darwinism, as is shown by the current state of debate, is resistant to argument because it is resistant to fact. The worship of Darwin as a man, the attribution to him of insights and discoveries which were either part of the common scientific store of knowledge or were the discoveries of others, this is all necessary to bolster the religion of Darwinism.”
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, but unless you think you are capable of fully comprehending God’s will and actions, then you don’t know the mechanism or methods by which God created living things.
 
Looks like an interesting book. But i fear that it will argue that God is a builder.
 
Last edited:
AIPM1615 said:
It’s an embarrassment to people of faith to portray science as being “essentially atheistic.” There are a lot of religious scientists, especially Catholics and Muslims.
Click to expand...
There are indeed religious scientists, but it’s the spirit of atheism that dominates the scientific community. To deny this fact is to be out of touch with reality. The atheist domination of the sciences is what allows it get away with its incessant promotion of the pseudo-science of evolution.
But you know why it seems atheistic? Because empirical science is not a religious field
Click to expand...
Lame.

Boy oh boy, you are so blind, naive and brainwashed. The only reason the theory of microbe-man evolution exists is to destroy faith in God. Why else would this untestable and useless theory be exalted and worshipped the way it is? Think about it!
Most scientists are not “out to get us.”
Click to expand...
Yeah, right … militant atheist scientists like Dawkins, Lewontin, etc. are completley indifferent to religion! You need to understand that it is the devil is who is behind the theory of evolution and that he is using an army of atheist scientists to promote it. Clearly, you are yet another clueless victim of this demonic conspiracy; you’ve swallowed the hoax, hook, line and sinker.
It’s when evangelical nuts start forcing young earth creationism down people’s throats …
Click to expand...
I can’t recall anyone promoting a young earth on this thread.
The greatest minds of the Church have thoroughly rejected a literal reading of Genesis[
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, many of the greatest minds of the Church are as deceived, blind and brainwashed as you. Worse, I suspect that some of the greatest minds of the Church are spiritually corrupt and can be numbered among Satan’s little helpers.

The Catholic Church allows the faithful to believe in a literal “six days” interpretation of Genesis 1. Are you saying this teaching is wrong?
why some Catholics seem hellbent on defending fundamentalism is beyond me.
Click to expand...
What is “fundamentalism”?
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
Which is precisely why the Bible should not be used as a science textbook.
Click to expand...
The Bible mostly describes what happened - history; not how it happened - science. Genesis describes history, not science.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top