Is The Theory of Evolution mandatory for the modern worldview

[nmercier1]

Alright. This guy makes some compelling arguments as to why evolution does not account to the non-physical presence in our mind. He kinda takes it to the extreme and says all of evolution is wrong, which I do not exactly agree with, but nonetheless I was wondering what you experience scientists thought about his logic.
If this topic is in the wrong area, I apologize. Here are some links to his argument. I thought it was a worth a watch

Part 1
youtube.com/watch?v=KW5SuQOEaB8

Part 2
youtube.com/watch?v=pDi3mTkhOLE

substance dualism vs property dualism
youtube.com/watch?v=KFQiX8oYVTc

Here is his basic argument

1. Electrical impulses or chemical reactions can not be subjectively aware of electrical impulses or chemical reactions.
2. Our minds can become subjectively aware of electrical impulses or chemical reactions.
3. Therefore, our minds are not electrical impulses or chemical reactions.

A. If our minds are only physical, then only electrical impulses or chemical reactions can manipulate electrical impulses or chemical reactions.
B. Our minds are not electrical impulses or chemical reactions.
C. Our minds can manipulate electrical impulses or chemical reactions.
D. Therefore, our minds are not only physical.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Neither 1 nor 2 are adequately supported. They are assumptions, which, if true, do result in the conclusion.

Which has nothing to do with the issue of man’s evolution. If consciousness is the result of physical processes, then it can evolve.

If it’s not the result of physical processes, it has no bearing on the issue of human evolution.

 

[inthecloud]

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, wrote the following: “Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more it is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems much henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of though must follow this is what evolution is.”

Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole.

This is not to imply that we know everything that can and should be known about biology and about evolution. Any competent biologist is aware of a multitude of problems yet unresolved and of questions yet unanswered.

2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml

Accepting evolution makes biology and others sciences work and have sense. The question is that we should accept the methodological materialism of natural sciences as the norm for all walks of life as the new atheists pretent to demand.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Methodological naturalism can’t be applied to anything but the physical universe. The idea that it has universal application is absurd.

 

[Ender]

If consciousness is the result of physical processes, then it can evolve.

If it’s not the result of physical processes, it has no bearing on the issue of human evolution.

If consciousness is not the result of physical processes but nonetheless exists it has a great deal to say about human evolution. It says that man is not the product of mere physical processes, as Darwinists like to imply.

Ender

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian obsrves:
If consciousness is the result of physical processes, then it can evolve.

If it’s not the result of physical processes, it has no bearing on the issue of human evolution.

If consciousness is not the result of physical processes but nonetheless exists it has a great deal to say about human evolution. It says that man is not the product of mere physical processes, as Darwinists like to imply.

Hmmm… which scientist says that evolutionary theory shows man to be merely a product of physical processes?

Sounds like someone’s whipping up on the strawman, again.

 

[Ender]

Hmmm… which scientist says that evolutionary theory shows man to be merely a product of physical processes?

What part of evolutionary theory implies that man is partly the result of non-physical processes? I was unaware that evolutionary theory left room for characteristics that couldn’t have evolved. Or does Darwinism have an explanation for evolution via non-physical processes?

Ender

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
Hmmm… which scientist says that evolutionary theory shows man to be merely a product of physical processes?

(Ender apparently can’t find one)

What part of evolutionary theory implies that man is partly the result of non-physical processes?

It can’t do that. Science can’t address anything but physical things. So it can neither deny nor verify that man is also a spiritual being. Fortunately, God provided other means to do that.

I was unaware that evolutionary theory left room for characteristics that couldn’t have evolved.

Always. It can only provide natural explanations, but cannot deny that other things were involved.

Or does Darwinism have an explanation for evolution via non-physical processes?

Can’t. You might as well ask plumbing methods to explain the Trinity. But plumbing doesn’t deny the Trinity; it just can’t address that issue.

 

[Ender]

Science can’t address anything but physical things. So it can neither deny nor verify that man is also a spiritual being.

Apparently Barbarian is having trouble staying focused: the topic is the evolution of consciousness, not whether man is spiritual.

Your claim is that science can say nothing at all about consciousness since it isn’t a material thing, nonetheless it does exist in man and not in animals. Darwin stated that his theory would break down if any organ exists that could not have evolved. Do you assert that consciousness does not meet the criteria because it is not a physical organ - even though it exists as the ultimate saltation event and Darwinism cannot possibly explain it?

Ender

 

[nmercier1]

Bingo Ender… Bingo

 

[drpmjhess]

Darwin stated that his theory would break down if any organ exists that could not have evolved. Do you assert that consciousness does not meet the criteria because it is not a physical organ - even though it exists as the ultimate saltation event and Darwinism cannot possibly explain it?Ender

How do you understand “Darwinism”? Is gravity “Newtonianism”? Do you not distinguish between Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution?

 

[rrochon]

remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2007-1130-a_turning_point.htm, would seem to make the opposite true for a Catholic. (If this link won’t open, copy it and paste it into your browser’s address bar.)

Since evolution requires long ages (hundreds of millions of years), and this has been assumed by geological layers of rocks that contains fossils, which the above reference disproves, the theory of evolution has lost its foundation.

Also, the infallible dogma of the Ecumenical Council Lateran IV states that God:…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing (D. 428). This has been reinterpreted by some theologins to the mean exact opposite, because they fear the criticism of the scientific community…

And to quote Chardin, whose teachings have been comdemned numerous times by the Church and his own Jesuit order, would convince only a Catholic who does not respect the authority of the Church.

I know that even some Bishops quote and refer to Chardin’s writings, but it is not that unusual for some clerics to ignore or oppose the magisterium. Remember, no heresy or schism was ever started by a lay person.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Here is his basic argument

1. Electrical impulses or chemical reactions can not be subjectively aware of electrical impulses or chemical reactions.
2. Our minds can become subjectively aware of electrical impulses or chemical reactions.
3. Therefore, our minds are not electrical impulses or chemical reactions.

I think it’s a good argument. It’s a big reason that I believe that I have a soul.
I don’t see what it has to do with evolution though. I don’t see why he opposes evolution?

 

[Catholic_Home]

The Church issued warnings on the writings of Tielhard de Chardin as recently as the 1980s. I would be inclined to discount anything he has to say on the subject.
Christine

 

[drpmjhess]

Since evolution requires long ages (hundreds of millions of years), and this has been assumed by geological layers of rocks that contains fossils, which the above reference disproves, the theory of evolution has lost its foundation.

Wilders is a nut case don’t believe him! He knows nothing about geology that he hasn’t made up himself.

 

[CollegeBoi1985]

As others have noted, there needs be two distinctions here. One concerning the issue of what conciousness entails and the other what evolution entails. They are two very different, though related issues. The argument which opened the question is better suited to defend the former (consciousness being immaterial) although it is hardly the only argument.

Are consciousness and the material matter of the brain interrelated? of this we can be sure, for a strong blow to the head, mental illness, drug usage and the like all effect consciousness and have all been shown to have a material component in regards to the brain. However, that does not make consciousness a purely material event, it merely reinforces the catholic position that the body and soul are united (yet still distinct) and form one being. Hence also the reinforcement of the resurrection of the body. The immaterial demonstrations of the intellect or soul are varied and too long to go into at the moment.

Concerning the issue of evolution the catholic church maintains that it is an issue for science to prove or disprove but that there is no conflict with the theory of evolution and catholic teachings. However, the catholic must maintain the following:

1. That God created everything ex nihilo or “out of nothing” this finds support in the Big Bang Hypothesis.
2. If evolution occured (we can be fairly certain that it has) at a certain point in time God chose to set apart humanity from the rest of the created order (animals and the like) in this universe by granting humanity the gift of an immortal, individual soul, which millenia of good catholic philosophy (and nearly every religion) will testify to the existence of.

 

[drpmjhess]

1. That God created everything ex nihilo or “out of nothing” this finds support in the Big Bang Hypothesis. .

This would, of course, be compatible with an eternal, oscillating universe, each big bang following a previous big crunch. The entire series would be ontologically contingent on God. To date we have no scientific way of determining whether there had been a preceding state of affairs to a singularity; it cannot be ruled in or out.

Petrus

 

[The_Barbarian]

Apparently Barbarian is having trouble staying focused: the topic is the evolution of consciousness, not whether man is spiritual.

You’ve gotten confused again. It’s whether or not science can evaluate anything that is not physical

Your claim is that science can say nothing at all about consciousness

No, you made that up. Science can only evaluate the physical universe. Consciousness, being associated in every case with a sufficiently evolved nervous system, is indeed a part of the physical universe, and is a proper study of science. It might be more than merely an attribute of nervous systems, but that is one of its properties.

since it isn’t a material thing, nonetheless it does exist in man and not in animals.

If you don’t consider men and apes to be animals. On the other hand, apes have consciousness, empathy, and express moral judgments. They not only have consciousness, they are capable of inferring consciousness in others.

Darwin stated that his theory would break down if any organ exists that could not have evolved.

No, you’ve gotten that one wrong, too. How about learning what he really said?

Do you assert that consciousness does not meet the criteria because it is not a physical organ - even though it exists as the ultimate saltation event

If so, why do apes seem to be intermediate between us and other primates in this regard? How is it that humans and apes can infer mental states in others, but most animals can’t?

and Darwinism cannot possibly explain it?

Sounds like a testable assertion. Show me.

 

[The_Barbarian]

**Concerning the issue of evolution the catholic church maintains that it is an issue for science to prove or disprove but that there is no conflict with the theory of evolution and catholic teachings. However, the catholic must maintain the following:

1. That God created everything ex nihilo or “out of nothing” this finds support in the Big Bang Hypothesis.
2. If evolution occured (we can be fairly certain that it has) at a certain point in time God chose to set apart humanity from the rest of the created order (animals and the like) in this universe by granting humanity the gift of an immortal, individual soul, which millenia of good catholic philosophy (and nearly every religion) will testify to the existence of.**

Well said.

 

[drpmjhess]

If you don’t consider men and apes to be animals. On the other hand, apes have consciousness, empathy, and express moral judgments. They not only have consciousness, they are capable of inferring consciousness in others.

So, the Barbarian, we meet again! I like your characterization of animal souls. But again, the question is whether and where there is a hard-and-fast dividing line between the souls humans have evolved, and the souls of their primate relatives. I have never seen a coherent explanation of where such a line might be drawn, and I know we’ve been through this before on CAF. The old argument that God prepared a hominid body into which He/She plunked an immortal soul is quite incoherent for the biological reason of the genetic bottleneck, that Alec has posted elsewhere.

Petrus