Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

[rossum]

Vatican and on the other, there’s you seeing liars hiding in the virtual stacks of Internet wisdom

I am not seeing liars, the liars openly tell you that they lie (by omission). Here is part of the Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith:

4:6 By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

They will deliberately ignore any and all scientific evidence that does not conform to their overly literal interpretation of a Late Bronze/Early Iron age text. That is lying by omission.

Oh yes, and for Jefferson Airplane try Pink White Rabbit.

rossum

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Along with the word evolution, which has a slippery meaning, we see mutation being used to describe the existence of blue eyes, which you attribute to physical glitches in genomic reproduction. This need not be the case. Nor is it that it is likely, if at all possible, that diversity is the outcome of such events.

There is variation in the genome among members of the human family. This can happen as a result of physical factors and would be in keeping with the model of Intelligent Design. From all-encompassing genetic perfection in Adam, it’s a downhill course for humanity. Just like we each as individuals get old, so is our species. Or from a pluripotential first parent, all this diversity follows.

Of course you can hypothesize anything. You can hypothesize that everything that happens is the result of direct intervention by God. And you can do it in such a way that is completely consistent with observations. I can even hypothesize that the physical phenomenon of gravity is the result of direct and continuous intervention by God. The “law of nature” describing gravity is just God being very consistent about how he makes objects move in our world. There need not be any actual thing called gravity. We call it a law of nature because that is the interpretative overlay we humans create to make sense of our world. But that interpretation need not have any absolute meaning. But it has proved to be a useful fiction, if it was a fiction, to imagine that there is such a thing as a law of gravity.

The distinction between a scientific understanding and this “God controls everything” understanding is wholly philosophical. Either way of looking at the physical world is equally valid, philosophically. But we have set the ground rules for one particular way of looking at the world. If you want to play in that playground, you have to stick to the rules of that playground. That playground is called “science.” One of the rules of this playground is that we don’t hypothesize causes that are outside of what can be directly observed. This rules out saying that “God caused this or that.” This doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. It just means such causes are outside of this particular field.

 

[Aloysium]

But we have set the ground rules for one particular way of looking at the world. If you want to play in that playground, you have to stick to the rules of that playground. That playground is called “science.” One of the rules of this playground is that we don’t hypothesize causes that are outside of what can be directly observed. This rules out saying that “God caused this or that.” This doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. It just means such causes are outside of this particular field.

Seriously, where does one directly observe evolution. It’s a concept that requires an intellect. I should ask my cat if she saw it; but I probably won’t because those kinds of conversations with her have been even less fruitful than these here. I can’t deny however, that on the other hand, she has taught me a lot.

Let’s cut to the chase, prove that what amounts to genetic damage causes the diversity we see on earth. If you can’t you might wish to consider not using the word science to describe evolutionary theory.

 

[Aloysium]

Here is part of the Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith:

4:6 By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Reason dictates that if we find something that contradicts a belief, several situations may be in effect:

• the belief is wrong
• the evidence is wrong
• both the belief and the evidence may be wrong
• the contradiction may be illusory or an artifact, in which case there is not much we can deduce; both the evidence and the belief might be valid.

Science follows this sort of reasoning.
The problem arises if one considers only evidence of one kind as being acceptable.
This is my take on it. Genesis is a teaching of the Church which reveals the truth of creation in terms that are understandable to any generation. As a Church, guided by the Holy Spirit of God, we help one another understand their meaning. The Magisterium and the Catechism assist us in this capacity, which is pretty much what the quote is about.
That said, whatever one may understand of the revealed truth, it contradicts random-mutation-natural-selection evolutionary theory, which is falling by the wayside regardless, as we discover more about how the cell and genetics work.

As to Pink:

I’ll stick with the original Slick, the performance is less slick, and more in tune with those crazily creative times that were going to revolutionize the world. Some things got better as others did get worse, but I will leave that judgement up to God.

 

[edwest211]

Those times were anything but creative. I was there. They introduced fornication and illegal drug use as goods, along with porn. Cohabitation was encouraged. And that was crazy. Mom and dad? Out of the picture. The Church? Forget about it. Read books about Eastern mysticism. They turned the world in the wrong direction.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Reason dictates that if we find something that contradicts a belief, several situations may be in effect:

• the belief is wrong
• the evidence is wrong
• both the belief and the evidence may be wrong
• the contradiction may be illusory or an artifact, in which case there is not much we can deduce; both the evidence and the belief might be valid.

Science follows this sort of reasoning.
The problem arises if one considers only evidence of one kind as being acceptable.

That is not a “problem.” It is the definition of science. Evidence from divine revelation is not acceptable in science. That’s just the definition of that particular field of inquiry. That’s not to say it is the only valid field of inquiry, but whatever else you call those other fields, don’t call them science.

Despite repeated claims to the contrary, revealed truth, as understood by the Church, does not contradict random-mutation-natural-selection evolutionary theory.

 

[Metis1]

The basic ToE is just plain old common sense, namely that it appears all material objects change over time and genes are material objects.

 

[Aloysium]

I’m thinking more along the lines of civil rights and the arts; but yes power to the people and doing away with moral standards and diminishing the influence of the Church did damage to individuals and society.

 

[Aloysium]

So that would be your understanding of ToE.

 

[edwest211]

The arts? I was there, and stupid me, I thought these artists had high-minded goals beyond my limited comprehension. What did we get starting in the late 1960s? More bare skin, and as the years passed - violence and revenge are fun and good. Power to the people? What power? Only the anarchists wanted to hurt The Man. Steal from the rich. I saw a poster in an “underground newspaper” that read: “Eat The Rich.” How about Off The Pigs? That meant Kill The Police because they were going to arrest the dope heads for using weed. Bad, bad, bad, police. Or “We’ll burn this country down if we have to!” Or “Don’t trust anyone over 30.” Why? Because mom and dad might knock some sense back into your heads?

And Civil Rights. I was there when the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr, was assassinated. I was there for Black Power and the Black Panthers. And for the Weather Underground or Weathermen, a group of Communists. Oh yeah, things started to slowly go downhill and picked up more speed as each year passed.

 

[Aloysium]

Evidence from divine revelation is not acceptable in science. That’s just the definition of that particular field of inquiry. That’s not to say it is the only valid field of inquiry, but whatever else you call those other fields, don’t call them science.

Despite repeated claims to the contrary, revealed truth, as understood by the Church, does not contradict random-mutation-natural-selection evolutionary theory.

I would call it truth. The journey towards a real connection to what is real.

The fact is that Evolutionary Theory oversteps the bounds of science making claims that it cannot support and obfuscating the meanings of the terms it utilizes. It is merely another mythos, regardless of how rooted in the philosophy of science that its adherents claim it to be.

Despite repeated claims to the contrary, revealed truth, as understood by the Church, contradicts random-mutation-natural-selection evolutionary theory

 

[edwest211]

Divine revelation is acceptable to Catholics. Otherwise, why post here? And trying to shoehorn evolution into Church teaching is not the domain of science.

 

[Aloysium]

The 60’s were something lived, a personal voyage in a tumultuous sea of societal norms. I liked the music that flowed from various influences in the past and went on in new directions. I am reluctant to admit, but I didn’t mind and even liked some disco that followed. The news is the news. After the horrors of the Second World War, the antiwar movements were like a glimmer of hope for humanity. As you say, anarchists were intent on destruction then, as they are now, whether out of hate or in the vain hope that reducing everything to ashes would cause a Phoenix to rise. Those approaches turned out to be not unlike the angler fish. As I said in the original post on the topic, “I will leave that judgement up to God”. I must say that the least of my concerns was someone stealing from or eating me. They were difficult times and also very good times. There’s always something though. Staying on topic, half a century ago, evolutionary theory was as real to me as the earth spinning around the sun. Before I dement, I hope to continue learning and know even more; so while it may just be vanity, some things are most definitely better now.

 

[edwest211]

Some things are better now? Not speaking to you directly, but, in general, foundational principles have been wrecked and distorted. Today is better? No - definitely no.

Back then, I accepted evolutionary theory since I trusted my instructors. Now, after a closer look, a few conclusions:

A) It provides zero guidance to science.

B) It is useless for any other purpose.

My car built itself? My ancestor lived in the ocean? That cannot be verified as factual. The real problem is the evolutionary theory that means materialism is the only answer. It’s not.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The fact is that Evolutionary Theory oversteps the bounds of science making claims that it cannot support and obfuscating the meanings of the terms it utilizes.

Do you think the theory of plate tectonics oversteps the bounds of science? It is similar to evolution in that it claims that lands masses moved in certain ways, floating on the earth’s molten core, billions of years ago. We cannot duplicate the movement of those plates today. If you are going call evolution out of bounds there are a lot of other scientific theories that have nothing to do with life that you are going to have to throw out for the same reason. Do you also believe that the premise of South America once being joined to Africa is also a myth? Just admit that the one and only reason you cannot accept evolution as science is that it contradicts your personal interpretation of divine revelation.

 

[edwest211]

Not a good comparison. A movement rate for plate tectonics has been established. It can be demonstrated that rock strata from South America and Africa indicate they were joined at one point. Evolution? Not much there at all.

 

[Metis1]

Essentially that life forms evolve over time due to a variety of factors that at the least includes mutations, genetic drift, and natural selection. OTOH, what it doesn’t include within it is whether God(s) were involved.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Not a good comparison. A movement rate for plate tectonics has been established. It can be demonstrated that rock strata from South America and Africa indicate they were joined at one point.

The movement in earth’s plates that has been observed is “micro-movement.” It is as absurd to extrapolate from that to “macro-movement” as it is to extrapolate from “micro evolution” or adaptation if you will, to “macro evolution”. The similarities in rock strata from South America and Africa were placed there by God when He designed the plates. He chose to make them look similar, in the same way he chose to make humans and chimps have certain superficial similarities. It does not mean that South America and Africa were ever joined any more than chimp-human similarities means that they have a common descent. See? This game of making up supernatural explanations for things that have a scientific explanation is quite easy to play.

 

[goout]

A lot of people say a lot of things.
Fact:
You will find no reputable scientist denying that “evolution” describes real processes of change in nature, including biology. And that evolution can be “recognized as more than an hypothesis” (in the words of St John Paul 2).

It’s understandable that some might not consider John Paul a first class physical scientist. No problem.
But to find yourself philosophically opposed on this issue to a saint who might be the philosopher of the millennium? That would give me pause to look in the mirror and wonder if I should reconsider my philosophy of science.

Not to mention, he should be given more weight because he is…ummm…seriously Catholic, and we are talking about the Catholic perspective on this issue.

 

[goout]

edwest211:

Not a good comparison. A movement rate for plate tectonics has been established. It can be demonstrated that rock strata from South America and Africa indicate they were joined at one point.

The movement in earth’s plates that has been observed is “micro-movement.” It is as absurd to extrapolate from that to “macro-movement” as it is to extrapolate from “micro evolution” or adaptation if you will, to “macro evolution”. The similarities in rock strata from South America and Africa were placed there by God when He designed the plates. He chose to make them look similar, in the same way he chose to make humans and chimps have certain superficial similarities. It does not mean that South America and Africa were ever joined any more than chimp-human similarities means that they have a common descent. See? This game of making up supernatural explanations for things that have a scientific explanation is quite easy to play.

I think you are using irony to make a point?
You can see God’s hand in everything. And (one of the most important Catholic words) at the same time you can see the physical processes God created to see it happen.

Fundamentalism robs faith of mystery. Mystery is the fullness of truth, seen and unseen, not the dead end of materialism.
Mystery causes us to pursue truth. That’s what science does, that’s what theology does. And prayer. All of them lead to God.