Is evolution a fact?

[steveandersen]

I have not followed this board carefully, that is, the evolution conversations.

I come and go.

I truly was looking to learn.

That’s why I’m here too

I do not like fights.

Nor do I
But this isn’t really a fight.

Concerning my poor phrase about numbers: I was wondering if in the world of science it is 100 % agree with evolution.

Are the number 70 % agree and 30 % do not agree? (50/50, etc.)

100% is not a number that gets used in science too often
Science is all about probabilities, limits of certainty, and confidence intervals
That being said, I would think that >99% of research biologists agree with both the fact of evolution and that what is called the modern synthesis (basically Darwin’s original idea merged with genetics) is the best theory to explain the observable facts.

The other concern was: Is there just one model or two or 40 models?

Well there are competing ideas about the details of evolution but to non-experts like you and me they are all just variations on the same basic theme.
Sort of like two guys arguing which is better vanilla or chocolate…they’re both ice cream.

Sorry about any problems my lack of knowledge causes.

I am truly sorry; I have no desires to start fights.

Perhaps I used a poor word with logomachy, but I was trying to be a little silly.

Again, I am most interested in learning.

Don’t apologize
Your post was fine
It is just late and I get cranky sometimes.
Forgive me if I was brusque

 

[zian]

“I’m taking this loop off …”

• Jack O’Neill

oh, and for the record, natural selection is not random.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Websites with pictures include:

Hominid Species, which has links to pictures of the fossils. The Illustrations page has direct links to all the illustrations without the descriptive text.

The Skulls Comparison is a commonly referenced picture. A and N are modern, the rest are fossils between 2.6 My and 30,000 y. Note that all the skulls have been scaled to the same size in this picture.

As to what the oldest human fossils are, that depends on what your definition of “human” is. Upright walking came earlier than the large brain. For upright walking try Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis - both possibly bipedal, Ardipithecus ramidus - probably bipedal and Australopithecus anamensis - definitely bipedal. For a large brain try the early members of genus Homo, Homo habilis or Homo erectus for example.

rossum

There was good and bad mixed in those links. The first two didnt really make a good case until the erectus “turkana boy” because that was the first full skeleton they had pictures for. I believe the details of that skeleton will determine a lot.
The skull comparison was good and the only two options I see is either they are from animals or humans over time.

Your three part post is more saturated with errors and failures of logic than I have time to deal with, but I couldn’t let this pass without comment.

** What you are, in effect, attempting to do here, is to redefine what constitutes science to suit your agenda. Fortunately, you are in no position to tell scientists what is ‘true’ science and what is not ‘true’ science.**

If we were to follow your idiosyncratic definition, we would have to assert that not only is evolutionary biology not ‘real’ science, but neither is geology, petrology, palaeontology, cosmology, astrophysics, palaeoclimatology, palaeomagnetism, biogeography, continental history and so on.

** Basically, you have made a poor argument against evolutionary biology - the ‘we have to have been there to observe it in action’ or ‘we must be able to repeat it in the lab’ arguments are made only by those with a religious motivation for re-defining science - a project, incidentally, that is doomed to failure.**

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Funny you do the exact same thing I called out that previous author for doing. You accuse me of redefining science and yet by the end of your post you brush off the need for verifiable/observable results…who is redefining science here?

 

[rossum]

I just don’t think random mutations and natural selection can get “basic matter” to “us” in 13.7 billion years, or even basic matter to the simplest form of DNA. I don’t keep links handy since I rarely discuss this, but I saw a basic probability calculation in a book a while back. Assume that every particle in the universe is involved in some kind random combination with other elemental particles or more complex particles. Assume so many random combinations per second. How long does it take to come up with the simplest form of DNA? The answer was something like 10^100 or 10^200 times what we think is the lifetime of the universe. You seem pretty smart, If you want to do your own such calculation and post it here, I’ll keep an open mind.

The model you are using is incorrect - “random combination” is not how strings of DNA arise in evolution. You have a string of DNA 3,000,000,000 base pairs long in each of your cells. The chance of that string arising by random combination is 4^3,000,000,000 so by your own argument you do not exist. The answer to the problem is to use a better model. Your DNA did not arise by random combination, it arose via the standard reproductive process from your parents’ DNA. Evolution works by taking previous DNA, copying it with a few errors, and then seeing which of the slightly different versions makes more copies of itself than the others. The second part - natural selection - is not a random process so your “random combination” model is not appropriate. I do have a more detailed explanation available at The Evolution of Boojumase. This uses a more complex and more realistic model than the “random combination” model your calculation was using. It is a bit long to post here, but it does include explicit calculations showing that a 100 amino acid protein can evolve in just over 2,000,000 generations. That would equate to a 300 base pair string of DNA.

Moving from evolution, which covers the diversity of life, to abiogenesis, which covers the origin of life. Again we do not have a random combination as chemistry limits the number of possible combinations, they are not random. There is a lot of work still to be done on abiogenesis but you might want to look up “RNA world” as one major possibility for the precursor to DNA.

rossum

 

[Hastrman]

Technically, yes, it is random. It’s just a biased random.

 

[ricmat]

The model you are using is incorrect - “random combination” is not how strings of DNA arise in evolution. You have a string of DNA 3,000,000,000 base pairs long in each of your cells. The chance of that string arising by random combination is 4^3,000,000,000 so by your own argument you do not exist. The answer to the problem is to use a better model. Your DNA did not arise by random combination, it arose via the standard reproductive process from your parents’ DNA. Evolution works by taking previous DNA, copying it with a few errors, and then seeing which of the slightly different versions makes more copies of itself than the others. The second part - natural selection - is not a random process so your “random combination” model is not appropriate. I do have a more detailed explanation available at The Evolution of Boojumase. This uses a more complex and more realistic model than the “random combination” model your calculation was using. It is a bit long to post here, but it does include explicit calculations showing that a 100 amino acid protein can evolve in just over 2,000,000 generations. That would equate to a 300 base pair string of DNA.

Moving from evolution, which covers the diversity of life, to abiogenesis, which covers the origin of life. Again we do not have a random combination as chemistry limits the number of possible combinations, they are not random. There is a lot of work still to be done on abiogenesis but you might want to look up “RNA world” as one major possibility for the precursor to DNA.

rossum

1. I am not a creationist, as I stated above. The “evolution” over time of species I am not debating.
2. I was taught, and taught, and taught that the theory of Darwinian evolution is that **random **mutations cause variations in species populations, and then natural selection gives preference to mutations which allow more successful competition, which are then passed along to progeny.

I have no issues with the natural selection part. It’s the random mutation part. And yes, that’s what the Darwinists claim. It is random i.e. no intelligence behind it. To claim otherwise would give an open door to the possibility of God, which they can’t allow that door to open even a crack.

Now, if chemistry limits the number of combinations, as you say, then that is a built in bias, built/designed into the natural laws of the universe. And how did that happen?

1. What I contend is that the coming together of “basic life” from basic elements is so unlikely to occur as to be impossible - unless there is some external bias (be it in God’s design of the laws of nature, or via more direct manipulation).
2. Yes - you are correct above (the bolded part). You make my point for me. A new model is needed. Random (non biased) processes just doesn’t get you there.

 

[ricmat]

Me too

While there are random elements to it
No one claims that evolution is a truly random process
Much of it is deterministic
As an engineer you should understand the difference

No one says “infinite” time or “infinite” numbers of particles
We have a pretty good handle on the age and size of the Earth

Do you know how many molecules there are in a glass of water? (Come on you remember Avogadro’s number from school…….10^23 or some similar ridiculously large number) or how many collisions between molecules take place in that glass every second? Ever take any kinetics courses?

How many molecules are in the ocean? How many collisions in a billion years?

Are you suggesting that science claims that molecules make active choices?
They follow predictable laws and mechanisms. That is why it is not a truly random process.

1. The Darwinists claim that the mutations involved in evolution is a totally random process. A gamma ray comes along and “pop” - there’s a mutation, and what it hits in the DNA string is totally random. Tell me how this can be deterministic.
2. Yes, as I said above, the evidence points to a universe which is about 13.7 billion years old. And we know about how many particles there are in the universe. The calculation I referred to was in a book I read about 10 years ago, probably by Gerald Schroeder or Paul Davies, both physicists. They both wrote a bunch of books, so I apologise that I don’t remember exactly which book. The main point was that people hear 13.7 billion years, and think that’s almost infinite, but it’s a whole lot smaller than infinite. And they see the number of particles in the universe, and they think that that’s almost infinite too.

You seem to think that 10^23 is a large number, and it is. But it aint nearly large enough.

For example, they think that a billion monkeys randomly typing on a word processors would, in 13.7 billion years, come up with all the works of Shakespeare (this is a hard core teaching example of Darwinian evolution). But you could have a trillion monkeys and 100 billion years and you still wouldn’t get Shakespeare. And DNA is more complex than the works of Shakespeare.

Without intelligent guidance in putting the pieces together, it just won’t happen.

To those above who are demanding links to prove things, well, I’m just not going to get into a “my link is better than your link” sort of thing. That could go on forever.

1. No, I’m not claiming that molecules make active choices. I’m setting up the “best case” scenario for the Darwinists. I’m claiming that if you go back 13.7 billion years, and take all the molecules in the universe and put them in close proximity to one another so they have an opportunity to actually interact, that in 13.7 billion years you won’t see any DNA. And that’s under a better situation than we know really exists.

If I landed on Mars, and found what looked like an alien SUV sitting in the sand, and another alien SUV that was similar to the first one, but not exactly the same, as an engineer I’d conclude that they were both designed, not that one evolved from the other. Would you?

.

 

[rossum]

1. I was taught, and taught, and taught that the theory of Darwinian evolution is that **random **mutations cause variations in species populations, and then natural selection gives preference to mutations which allow more successful competition, which are then passed along to progeny.

Remember that “random” is shorthand for “random with respect to the effect on the phenotype”. Mutations have causes such as radiation or certain chemicals.

I have no issues with the natural selection part. It’s the random mutation part. And yes, that’s what the Darwinists claim. It is random i.e. no intelligence behind it. To claim otherwise would give an open door to the possibility of God, which they can’t allow that door to open even a crack.

Science as a whole cannot say anything about supernatural entities and evolution is no exception to that. There is nothing in evolution that requires intervention by a supernatural entity; that says nothing about whether any particular supernatural entity may or may not exist.

Now, if chemistry limits the number of combinations, as you say, then that is a built in bias, built/designed into the natural laws of the universe. And how did that happen?

Ask a cosmologist.

1. What I contend is that the coming together of “basic life” from basic elements is so unlikely to occur as to be impossible - unless there is some external bias (be it in God’s design of the laws of nature, or via more direct manipulation).

The origin of life is abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution can only happen once life has started. For a reasonably recent survey of current work on abiogenesis see: The Origin of Life. There is much more uncertainty about abiogenesis than there is about evolution.

1. Yes - you are correct above (the bolded part). You make my point for me. A new model is needed. Random (non biased) processes just doesn’t get you there.

I apologise for not making my point more clearly. The figure of 4^3,000,000,000 for the probability of your DNA is ludicrously wrong because the great bulk of your DNA already existed in one or other of your parents. It did not have to form at random - it only had to be copied, which greatly alters the probability calculation. The chance of your particular DNA emerging as a result of the combination of your parents’ DNA is a much smaller figure and well within reasonable bounds of possibility. The point I was trying to make was that your DNA did not arise from nothing via a random combination, it arose from a much more restricted combination of already existing DNA. This is Dawkins’ analogy of “Climbing Mount Improbable” - we do not climb a tall cliff in a single giant leap but by finding a smooth gently sloping path round the back. The large improbability of a string of DNA is smeared out into many small increments over many generations. This was what I illustrated in my Boojumase calculation - a 300 base pair string of DNA took just over 2 million generations to evolve.

rossum

 

[Libertas]

Evolution is probably the biggest crock of you know what I’ve ever heard of.

 

[EBSSTF4]

Evolution is probably the biggest crock of you know what I’ve ever heard of.

Can’t argue logic

Can you defend that statement in any way?

 

[Eliza10]

I am not a scientist…

I am going to read and learn…

Oh, I believe God created all things!!!

How He did it, I do not know nor comprehend.

Scientists, let the logomachy commence.

Wow, perfect set-up for the start of a very, very long thread, one that will never end! That sounds like a big headache to me. Especially when it arrives at the part where Adam and Eve’s children mated with alien sea creatures. But you enjoy it!

 

[hecd2]

You do get offended when I point out the nakedness of your Amatama, don’t you?

Ah, the pot calling the kettle black. I wonder who comes over as more offended? But I do get offended by boorish ignorance.

Newtonian mechanics are deader than dead, although they’re still used for most physics within a given geodesic frame. With the understanding that they are a simplification.

I wouldn’t call a model dead that is taught to every physics and engineering undergraduate and that is the basis for the overwhelming majority of professional engineering and science mechanics calculations. You obviously don’t know that all working models are simplifications - we can’t even solve the three body problem analytically. GR is incomplete too, just less incomplete than classical mechanics. If we use newtonian mechanics for most physics, and it’s dead, would you call it a zombie?

I did exaggerate the difference between Neo and “Paleo” Darwinism. Mea culpa. But the only difference between Darwinism and several other theories of origins then current is that Darwin proposed slow, gradual changes.

No, this is not so. The major difference between Darwin’s model and other models is that he postulated descent with modification - natural selection acting on variation as a mechanim for species divergence (which is still valid today), and he recognised that that process required a long time because it acts over many generations.

Which Punctuated Equilibrium obviously contradicts.

Which, if you had ever read anything by Gould and if you knew the first thing about PE, you would know that it doesn’t contradict. You obviously have some bizarre and erroneous idea about what Gould and Eldredge proposed.

Gould had to heap praise on Darwin so the ideologues wouldn’t castigate him

So you think Gould feigned admiration for Darwin in the terms that I posted because he was afraid of other biologists? You think Gould was an intellectual coward? You obviously know nothing about the man.

(and Dawkins did anyway, by the way), but in fact he contradicts the one unique trait of Darwinism.

Wrong - Gould absolutely subscribes to the natural selection model. Read, for example, “The Structure of Evolutionary Theory”. Gould says this in "Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes’: “We who lack an appreciation of history and have so little feel for the aggregated importance of small but continuous change scarely realise that the very ground is being swept from beneatjh our feet.” Stephen Gould is as much of a neo-Darwinian as Dawkins (who incidentally, is often complimentary in his discussion of Gould’s ideas). Ah, but it’s far easier to throw out idiocies that you’ve read on some tabloid web site than to engage with the sources.

And it is not libel to say that Stephen Hawking did what he did, which was leave his wife for a younger woman–it’s irrelevant to his science, but his morality was the topic under discussion.

No it was not. The topic under discussion was which pair of atheist and theist would make a good debate. You dragged Hawkings marital arrangements (which were irrelevant to the topic) in a particularly gross way, which I will not repeat, into the discussion. If you are a Christian, are you supposed not to judge, lest you be judged?

Continued

 

[hecd2]

Continuation

I don’t know what you mean about spelling his name, and frankly I don’t give a tinker’s damn.

That figures, since you don’t seem to care much about truth or accuracy at all.

As to Dawkins, how about neutrinos? He said “one” of them passes through your body every minute…um, no, Rick, try several billion every second. He called exponential growth “growth as a power function,” which does not exist. He does not know the difference between a cosmic ray and a gamma ray.

Well, so you say. First of all, I should be very interested in references to these claims that you are making about Dawkins’s errors. I’m sure you wouldn’t deliberately misrepresent him, but you must admit that your accuracy so far has been poor. Citations please. Secondly, if this is all you have to find fault with, for a man who has written several full length books and countless other papers, essays and articles about complex scientific concepts, then I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. You made more mistakes in your 400 words than he has in 400,000 (assuming that you haven’t actually misrepresented him). Thirdly, I have no problem with the statement (whether he made it or not) that something grows with a power function. F=a^x - what’s wrong with that?

How about “memes?” Not intelligent enough to know he’s a) in self-contradiction, positing the reality of the nonmaterial i.e. thoughts

Do you really think that Dawkins posits that thoughts and concepts don’t exist? You can’t really be suggesting that, can you? You can’t be that simple, surely?

and b) ripping off ideas from the Epicureans, he made up the idea of ideas propagating themselves like genes.

I should be very interested in a citation that shows that the Epicureans had the concept of memes in the form that Dawkins posited it.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

I was writing from memory. I knew he was a biochemist;

Well, no, you didn’t.

I wasn’t, however, lionizing Behe (with whom I really don’t agree),

Just how don’t you agree with Behe?

but pointing out that all Dawkins ever did, in regard to ID theory, was call names and sneer. He never tried to contradict the research because he was not qualified.

But *you *are qualified, I suppose. You are talking about a biologist with a degree and a PhD in zoology from Oxford University, who has been a lecturer in zoology at Berkeley and Oxford, who has developed one of the most influential conceptual frameworks in modern biology, and he’s not qualifiied? Now, that’s grasping at straws.

I’d like to see that testimony, though; that whole Pensylvania issue seemed pretty sordid and stupid on both sides. It seemed to involve Young-Earth Creationists prostituting ID theory to their own ends, from what I could see.

Yes, you’re right - the ID movement is Young Earth Creationism under a slicker skin. All the ID ‘heavyweights’ came out to testify, and their testimony led to the conclusion that Intelligent Design is a religious not a scientific concept.

Here is the relevant part of Behe’s testimony:

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that – which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other – many other theories as well.
Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
A That is correct.
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that’s correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word “theory,” it is – a sense of the word “theory” does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can’t go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.
Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?
A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody – well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori – a priori ruled out that what we – that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.

I do not libel. I insult. Dawkins is also, by the way, not a stupid zoologist but a stupid ethologist–he studies animal behavior, specifically.

What part of the true statement that Dawkins took a degree in zoology at Balliol and lectured in zoology at Berkeley and Oxford don’t you understand? And how stupid does one have to be not to know that ethology is a respected branch of zoology, that has made major contributions to evolutionary biology? Your statement is akin to saying that Tegmark is not a physicist but a cosmologist. Your attempt to discredit Dawkins by inferring that ethology is some sort of sub-science says more about you than about Dawkins. And the idea that he is an ethologist and nothing else is foolish.

Continued

 

[hecd2]

Continuation

I do not know what you’re talking about; I would like to know what this research is. I really don’t care one way or another about evolution (evolutionists are, in Dawkins’ case at least, fascists and bad philosophers, but science is science), but I had thought irreducible complexity seemed a very good challenge to it. How was it disproven?

IC relies on the concept that there are certain features of living things (Behe uses biochemical pathways, as he is a biochemist, remember?) which are complex and which require all key elements to be present and working for the system to work. It then says that since it is inconceivable that all the elements could have evolved simultaneously, the system could not have evolved. In order for IC to be right, Behe needs to show at least one biological system that CANNOT conceivably have evolved. But no such system exists, since simultaneous evolution of parts is not required to arrive at complex systems. Once a plausible route by which a supposed IC system could have evolved is posited (involving perhaps co-option or scaffolding), that evidence for IC is dead. Plausible routes have been posited for all system touted as potentially IC. Biologists now recognise that the IC concept is no better than the argument from personal incredulity: “I don’t personally see how X could have happened, so it didn’t”

If ID has been disproven, why wasn’t it touted to the rooftops? Answer: because nobody thought it was necessary, because they “just knew” it was false. That’s not science.

No, because it’s busted and scientists have moved on. It was busted quite soon after the publication of Darwin’s Black Box. It’s just not an interesting idea anymore.

I admit I was a little arrogant when I posted the first time, and should have double-checked a few references. But my main points remain valid–Dawkins is scum

Nice argument there.

Apparently irreducible complexity has been disproven. I will concede the point, if and when I see the research.

See this review that demolished it in 1996; it hasn’t got any better since:
bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

1. The Darwinists claim that the mutations involved in evolution is a totally random process. A gamma ray comes along and “pop” - there’s a mutation, and what it hits in the DNA string is totally random. Tell me how this can be deterministic.

It’s not - what is non-random is the filter of natural selection on the preferred propagation of some alleles rather than other alleles. The creation of the alleles is random - their probability of survival s deterministic.

But you don’t deny that polymorphism is created through random events (ie events which are not correlated to the phenotypic consequence of the changes in the genotype), do you? Surely you know that the whole process of creating a human being has many profoundly random elements: random sorting of chromosomes, crossing over, sperm competition? What’s the problem with random?

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm

 

[hecd2]

                 Originally Posted by **hecd2**

Quite clearly, you are. I simply point out that science is not limited to those disciplines where we can observe the phenomena directly or where we can reproduce it in the lab. And it’s not so limited. That’s why we have departments that study geology, petrology, palaeontology, cosmology, astrophysics, palaeoclimatology, palaeomagnetism, biogeography, continental history etc within the science faculties of thousands of universities. That’s why these subjects receive funding from science funding authorities. It is accepted universally that science includes the study of past events by exploring the evidence they have left taht we can see today using forensic techniques. That’s simply a fact, not a matter for debate. By trying to limit science to exclude these accepted scientific subjects - here are some again - geology, petrology, palaeontology, cosmology, astrophysics, palaeoclimatology, palaeomagnetism, biogeography, continental history - you are clearly the one indulging in arbitrary redefinition.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[PhilVaz]

Uh oh, here we go again…

February 8, 2007 The New York Times By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Cardinal: Schools Quiet Evolution Debate

Filed at 12:28 a.m. ET

NEW YORK (AP) – An influential Roman Catholic cardinal whose comments on evolution are closely followed condemned a court decision Wednesday that barred a Pennsylvania school district from teaching “intelligent design” in biology class.

Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna said in a lecture that restricting debate about Darwin’s theory of evolution amounts to censorship in schools and in the broader public.

“Commonly in the scientific community every inquiry into the scientific weaknesses of the theory is blocked off at the very outset,” Schoenborn said of Darwinism. “To some extent there prevails a type of censoring here of the sort for which one eagerly reproached the church in former times.”

The cardinal said he found it “amazing” that a U.S. federal court ruled in 2005 that the Dover, Pa., public school district could not teach the concept of “intelligent design” as part of its science class. The judge had said that the theory, which says an intelligent supernatural force explains the emergence of complex life forms, was creationism in disguise.

The cardinal said the Dover ruling meant that schoolchildren would only be taught a materialistic, atheistic view of the origin of universe, without considering the idea that God played a role.

“A truly liberal society would at least allow students to hear of the debate,” he said.

Schoenborn’s comments came in a speech Wednesday night sponsored by the Homeland Foundation, a philanthropy that funds cultural and religious programs, many involving the Catholic Church.

It is the latest in a series of remarks he has made on the topic. The cardinal, who is close to Pope Benedict XVI, has said he wants to correct what he calls a widespread misconception that the Catholic Church has given a blanket endorsement to Darwin’s theories.

The “intelligent design” concept has been promoted most prominently by the Discovery Institute, a think tank in Seattle. Asked after the speech if he was endorsing the institute’s beliefs, Schoenborn would say only “listen to my arguments,” cautioning that his views should not be put “in a box.”

“I don’t belong to any kind of boxes,” he said.

The lecture was based on a talk Schoenborn gave in a private meeting in Italy last year with Benedict, a former professor, and several of his old students, where they discussed evolution.

Schoenborn affirmed that the Catholic Church rejects creationism, saying “the first page of the Bible is not a cosmological treatise about the coming to be of the world in six days.” He also said that “the Catholic faith can accept” the possibility that God uses evolution as a tool. But he said science alone cannot explain the origins of the universe.

New York Times article

END

 

[a_priori]

God “exists” outside of time and space.

The process of natural selection itself is a non-negotiable fact. Just ask someone with a multi-drug resistant bacterial infection and they surely know it’s a fact.

God created everything. There is evidence that a “Big Bang” ocurred and that the earth is old. Many things have happened over the last few billion years that we will never fully comprehend. Whatever the mechanism, we know that the “First Cause” was God. If evolution was a component in the process of making us who we are, what on earth is the problem?

Nothing will knock God off the throne. Some people act as though evolutionary processes and God are mutually-exclusive. They’re not. There is really no need to kick up so much dust. God is. Period.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

I submit those who trumpet that there is no conflict between faith and evolution may want to search themselves a little harder. Atheists (afaik) universally hold Darwinism as the tenet that “disproves” God, that makes God superfluous. This theory already swells the pride of such people as “man as animal on the top” being the measure of the universe.

This is one of a long line of serios spiritual evils stemming from misapplications of evolution thought, e.g. the devaluation of human life.
**
If you like to trumpet that Catholicism and the theory of evolution are not incompatible, I would really like to beg you also to work on how this can be an ecumenical tool for atheists who have entrapped themselves in a metaphysics based on their interpretation of evolution.**