Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

[Rau]

Yes, I do. One of the clear attractions of Darwinism is that, if evolution (an idea first proposed by the ancient Greeks) is truly driven by chance alone then it is a strong argument that God had no hand in creation.

That issue never concerns me, because we have no way of declaring the set of mutations truly random. They may be indistinguishable from random to us - but we cannot know.

what is being learned about how cells actually behave seems to be quite a threat, because if change is not random it opens the door to it being directed, and thus to there being a director.

“Responding to the environment” does not strike me as evidence of moment by moment direction, at least no more so than does the occurrence of mutations that we might imagine are random (and then are filtered by the environment).

By the way Ender, if there was any doubt about the level of religious fervor at work here, take note of the quantity of flippant, ridiculing posts on the thread.

 

[Techno2000]

Ender:

Yes, I do. One of the clear attractions of Darwinism is that, if evolution (an idea first proposed by the ancient Greeks) is truly driven by chance alone then it is a strong argument that God had no hand in creation.

That issue never concerns me, because we have no way of declaring the set of mutations truly random. They may be indistinguishable from random to us - but we cannot know.

what is being learned about how cells actually behave seems to be quite a threat, because if change is not random it opens the door to it being directed, and thus to there being a director.

“Responding to the environment” does not strike me as evidence of moment by moment direction, at least no more so than does the occurrence of mutations that we might imagine are random (and then are filtered by the environment).

By the way Ender, if there was any doubt about the level of religious fervor at work here, take note of the quantity of flippant, ridiculing posts on the thread.

We are bound to be flippant if you keep on insisting we descended from Apes .

 

[Rau]

We are bound to be flippant if you keep on insisting we descended from Apes .

:rofl:I didn’t even name those with a propensity to flippancy and derision

 

[rossum]

Give an influenza virus a trillion years and it will not become a lotus flower.

Probably not. A lotus flower is a development of a bacterium, not a virus.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The Catholic Church has the fullness of truth.

That is not what my local Rabbi tells me.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

And a bacterium would be a development of atoms doing what they do, self-arranging as molecules in a complex matrix of interactions. This would be presumably totally haphazard, going nowhere (you have specified no final cause, nor agent who would be responsible) but getting to where we are sitting here, thinking and communicating through an electronic network of information.

Believe what you will. I don’t.

 

[rossum]

This would be presumably totally haphazard,

No. Bacteria are living things and they evolve. Hence natural selection is in play, and natural selection is very definitely not haphazard.

Every bacterium alive today has billions of ancestors over billions of generations – generation time for bacteria can be as short as 30 minutes – and every single one of those billions of ancestors succeeded in reproducing. Every single one. Not one failure in all those generations. That is not “haphazard”, that is success on success on success on success…

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

The idea of natural selection as the designer that produces the diversity we see today, which includes ourselves as beings with self-awareness does fit a naturalist view of existence and is consistent with pantheistic philosophies that include the idea of reincarnation. Within that world view, we are the universe becoming self-aware and religion, a product of evolutionary processes as universal awareness seeks to understand itself.

What I am doing here could be understood as an evolutionary process. A number of ideas come to mind that have to do with reality. They are juggled and shifted around, looked at from different perspectives and the “natural selection” of reality itself, tosses out those that fit less well. The fact is that a certain amount of inspiration, anything but random and called grace by many, is required to get those intitial realizations/revelations and to maintain the process. That is what brought me to Catholicism.

Getting back to material evolution, we can think of the universe as an ocean of atoms, interconnected and coming together in quite complex forms such as proteins and DNA. Materially speaking, the organism is a collection of molecules existing within the larger universe comprised of the same thing. There’s no real inside or outside to it all. What we have is a pre-primordial soup becoming a primordial soup in which clumps of complex molecules, called cells, condense and float around in a cosmic minestrone. If the individual atoms came together randomly as the first forms of life, and they in turn morphed in accordance with the vagaries of chemical reactions, then the whole things is random. Evolutionary theory rests on the idea of matter, DNA and its transformations. If natural selection, which is essentially a physical process is not haphazard, then the central hypothesis is false - so, it’s not random.

I’m going to stop soon; the longer posts get, the more likely they will be skipped over. I won’t like that because there are reasons why I am doing this. It is important to fulfill our purposes, unlike bacteria who meet success by simply surviving and procreating. Since nothing will be left in this world but our remnants - bones and artifacts, everything boils down to how we have lived. It is a good feeling that comes with the thought that this has been a good life. That feeling is tied to the reality that there is meaning, the Logos or the Way if you will, present in every moment, in every space and object, and it directs the design of life on this planet. We don’t necessarily see it; we have to ask and mean it, humbly listening, the more silent the better.

 

[edwest211]

It’s totally haphazard. While the claim that it’s not (somehow) will be repeated.

 

[Ender]

That issue never concerns me, because we have no way of declaring the set of mutations truly random. They may be indistinguishable from random to us - but we cannot know.

I was referring to the attractiveness of Darwinism as a means of “scientifically” disproving the existence of God. That it was of little concern to you (or to me) doesn’t lessen its effect on others.

“Responding to the environment” does not strike me as evidence of moment by moment direction…

That evolution might be directed does not suggest that direction is either active or moment by moment. Randomness can exist in the timing of an event even if the occurrence of the event is inevitable.

By the way Ender, if there was any doubt about the level of religious fervor at work here, take note of the quantity of flippant, ridiculing posts on the thread.

You’ll get no argument from me, and I find those responses not just unhelpful but positively counterproductive. Valid concerns about Darwinism get swept aside as part of the general “that’s just more creationism nonsense, ignore it” reaction.

 

[Ender]

We are bound to be flippant if you keep on insisting we descended from Apes .

Do you reject evolution as a possibility because you don’t believe God would choose such a mechanism, or because you believe evolution rules out the possibility of man arising inevitably from such a process?

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

We are bound to be flippant if you keep on insisting we descended from Apes .

Do you reject evolution as a possibility because you don’t believe God would choose such a mechanism, or because you believe evolution rules out the possibility of man arising inevitably from such a process?

Both…

 

[edwest211]

Science is biased. The data can only be looked at one way. If this discussion was only about science, I would point out that thanks to many helpful posts and my reading of science journals related to this subject, has shown me that scientists, a) Know that they know a lot less than they do. “More complex than we thought.” is not uncommon. b) As the level of complexity increases, the possibility of this theory being right decreases by orders of magnitude. c) The timing of certain events, whether billions or millions or thousands of years, tells me there was not enough time. That alone invalidates most of the claims.

That the mechanisms are not well understood is another issue. Genetic similarities are related to similar functions and similar body plans. No surprise there. But extrapolating beyond that is pure speculation. Nothing more.

Not to oversimplify but I was watching a TV program where scientists proclaimed that if a planet was a certain distance from its sun and had the ‘building blocks of life’ (amino acids), and water, then life would arise there. Later, I realized this was totally unproven. In essence, right now, I should be able to buy a packet, pour the contents into a pot of water, and get instant life. But that’s not possible. Another strike against the theory.

The more posts I see, the less I’m inclined to regard the theory as credible. A lot of time does not explain anything.

 

[Techno2000]

Science is biased. The data can only be looked at one way. If this discussion was only about science, I would point out that thanks to many helpful posts and my reading of science journals related to this subject, has shown me that scientists, a) Know that they know a lot less than they do. “More complex than we thought.” is not uncommon. b) As the level of complexity increases, the possibility of this theory being right decreases by orders of magnitude. c) The timing of certain events, whether billions or millions or thousands of years, tells me there was not enough time. That alone invalidates most of the claims.

That the mechanisms are not well understood is another issue. Genetic similarities are related to similar functions and similar body plans. No surprise there. But extrapolating beyond that is pure speculation. Nothing more.

Not to oversimplify but I was watching a TV program where scientists proclaimed that if a planet was a certain distance from its sun and had the ‘building blocks of life’ (amino acids), and water, then life would arise there. Later, I realized this was totally unproven. In essence, right now, I should be able to buy a packet, pour the contents into a pot of water, and get instant life. But that’s not possible. Another strike against the theory.

The more posts I see, the less I’m inclined to regard the theory as credible. A lot of time does not explain anything.

Plus, you can’t find anything in nature that is transitioning 1/4…1/2…or 3/4 of turning into something new.

 

[Ender]

Both…

When Galileo proposed his heliocentric view of our solar system he got some things right (yes, the Earth moves around the sun), but he also got some things wrong. Specifically, he asserted that the orbits of the planets were circles, because circles were perfect forms, and clearly God would choose the perfect over the imperfect in his works of creation. I think this is what you’re doing in insisting that God would not choose evolution as a means of creating man. If man was created by God, why would it matter what process he chose? Is man any less his creation?

As to the possibility of man not being created by a process of evolution, I think this concern was addressed in my response to Rau about the effect Darwinism, and why Darwinism is such an attractive theory to disbelievers.

If Darwinism (neo-Darwinism, the modern synthesis, …) is true then it is a strong argument against divine intervention, which in fact explains a large amount of the resistance to suggestions that other mechanisms may be involved. That said, there are significant questions that have been raised, and significant scientific finding that suggest all is not well within the Darwinian stronghold.

The problem with rejecting Darwinism for theological reasons is not just that you put yourself ever further out on the fringe of the debate, but that you make it all the more difficult for contrary scientific findings to be taken seriously as well, and this is a major problem.

You’ve seen comments from Rossum about a process known as Horizontal Gene Transfer, where whole genetic elements are transferred between species. According to him this is “no big deal”. It is no big deal now because the process has been confirmed (and has been safely defined as ‘within the parameters of Darwinism’), but it was a huge concern when it was first proposed, and it was so precisely because it appeared to challenge Darwinism. So strongly was this idea rejected by the Darwinists that the scientist (Barbara McClintock) who discovered the process in the 1940’s was by 1957 completely discouraged from publishing anything at all about her work…until she received the Nobel Prize for it.

It is not you but the Darwinists who are challenged by science.

 

[Rau]

I was referring to the attractiveness of Darwinism as a means of “scientifically” disproving the existence of God.

While it may seem ripe for that purpose, such is a misuse. It actually carries no such implication though I believe some on this thread fear that it does.

Valid concerns about Darwinism get swept aside

Some have, and some of the claimed facts from YEC websites were just wrong. Disappointingly, on this thread, it is those Catholics rejecting evolution who are more prone to resort to flippancy and derision.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Rau:

That issue never concerns me, because we have no way of declaring the set of mutations truly random. They may be indistinguishable from random to us - but we cannot know.

I was referring to the attractiveness of Darwinism as a means of “scientifically” disproving the existence of God.

Darwinism is made more attractive for this purpose party by those who take unreasonable positions against it, forcing people to choose between faith and what looks like reasonable science. If people stop forcing this choice, Darwinism becomes less of a tool for those who want to “prove” that God does not exist. In other words, if we show how Darwinism is compatible with the existence of God, we do more good that trying to pit God against actual science.

 

[Rau]

If Darwinism (neo-Darwinism, the modern synthesis, …) is true then it is a strong argument against divine intervention,

I think it may be persuasive for those inclined to disbelief, mainly because it is not the simple easy to imagine act of a God who snaps his fingers and new life forms on earth appear. But in reality, all we can say about evolution is that it “offers no evidence in support of divine intervention”. The miracles of Jesus are all interventions as best we can understand them. Do we take them to invalidate the science that would ordinarily reject them as impossible? No. We never require of science that it explain or incorporate “divine intervention”.

 

[edwest211]

Who is forcing anyone? If you miss Mass on Sunday, a priest will not be pounding on your door on Monday demanding to know why. It’s readily apparent that some Catholics are at odds with some Church teachings but pointing out what the Church teaches is helpful and should be done. The reader is free to accept it or not.

 

[Aloysium]

The problems that I see with the standard theory of evolution are as follows:

It does not account for life. We are living beings, whole in ourselves as a composite of elements whose structure can be described in terms of two dimensions - body and mind. One person, very complex cannot be reduced to molecules without figuratively taking the life out of them. Other organisms are like us, but possess a soul, a beingness that reflects their particular species.

There exist instincts that shape an organism’s perceptions, feelings and behaviour. While they are one with the organism’s material make up, they are of a totally different order than the processes that define matter. A pattern of action potentials in different area of the brain is described in terms of ions, cell membranes and neurotransmitters, while the mental phenomena to which they correlate within the unity of the organism, is described using words like colour, lines in motion, and attention. Our instinctual reactions are subsumed under our free will. The equivalent of instincts, what they do and how they interact, with respect to the atom would be measures such as charge, mass, velocity and so on. There is a hierarchy, where simpler components are taken into the being of the larger life form allowing it to express itself. This hierarchy would be the ontological foundation that evolutionary thought in general sees as having developed in time. Clearly, in time these creatures, the particular species would have to be created. What is simple matter could not become them. We had to be created since it is an eternal human spirit that defines us. No animal can become one of us. And we cannot reduce ourselves to animals; attempting to do so makes us demonic.

There are serious issues with the hypothesis that random chemical activity is responsible for the structure of DNA and RNA and the processes the cell utilizes for replication and the production of proteins with so many specific and diverse actions.

Natural selection is the lowest possible factor involved in the shaping of the diversity we see among living organisms. It has to do with what prevents an organism from reproducing and is related to internal physiological processes and external environmental factors on which the organism is dependent. While important for adaptation, it says only that an already existing more complex creature was able to live long enough to reproduce. It says nothing more about the formation of the greater complexity than did random mutation.

The hope is that ongoing research will bring to light more of the mechanics of how we came to be here. At that point, there may be a revolution of thought not unlike that which saw the sun, rather than the earth as the centre of the solar system. We will see that life on earth has Being, with its relational qualities of knowing and doing, rather than matter at its centre.