Is The Theory of Evolution mandatory for the modern worldview

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian, can this be so? I’ve always had my suspicions about the creos on this thread.

Not all of them I think, and the one that seems so to me, that’s based on inferences from his behavior. The fact that he so badly wanted to have us “buy the book” is telling, as is the fact that he knew the agenda of the authors but was unwilling to tell us about it.

In the 60s, I encountered these people, and they would pose as Christians, with “a higher consciousness” and would also desperately try to get you do do almost any act that could be classified as praising or supporting “Lord Krishna”.

So the pattern is familiar. I could be wrong of course, but the whole thing here quickly brought back those events.

 

[Wolseley]

Not all of them I think, and the one that seems so to me, that’s based on inferences from his behavior. The fact that he so badly wanted to have us “buy the book” is telling, as is the fact that he knew the agenda of the authors but was unwilling to tell us about it.

In the 60s, I encountered these people, and they would pose as Christians, with “a higher consciousness” and would also desperately try to get you do do almost any act that could be classified as praising or supporting “Lord Krishna”.

So the pattern is familiar. I could be wrong of course, but the whole thing here quickly brought back those events.

You continue in adharma, Barbarian. This builds up negative karma, and if you don’t work for tyaga, you will return in a lower incarnation and your purusha will never achieve samadhi with Brahman.

Remember the words of the sages in the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, and know that Shiva, source of purity and protection, can free you from the cycle of birth and death.

OM…shanti shanti shanti

 

[ricmat]

Not all of them I think, and the one that seems so to me, that’s based on inferences from his behavior. The fact that he so badly wanted to have us “buy the book” is telling, as is the fact that he knew the agenda of the authors but was unwilling to tell us about it.

Barbarian, dozens of times when people disagree with you, you tell them to get a good book on evolution and read it. For many evolution books, the agenda is clearly atheistic, and you know this. Using your own logic, you would be pushing an atheist agenda.

Now, we disagree about a lot of things, but I know that you’re a devoted Catholic, and I don’t think you have some secret atheist agenda (or a book deal of some sort).

Ditto for Wolseley. No secret agendas, no book deals.

In the 60s, I encountered these people, and they would pose as Christians, with “a higher consciousness” and would also desperately try to get you do do almost any act that could be classified as praising or supporting “Lord Krishna”.

So the pattern is familiar. I could be wrong of course, but the whole thing here quickly brought back those events.

Yes, you could be wrong of course. But it seems that you prefer to smear somebody with innuendo before saying that you might be wrong (as a polite afterthought).

 

[edwest2]

To my fellow Catholics,

We must always be on our guard against deception. The biology textbook is complete in and of itself. It includes no role for God and is, therefore, atheistic. Only the Church can combine real knowledge from the world we can observe and real knowledge from God. The secular world will not do this. This combination of knowledge is essential so that each human being properly understands his origin and his individual dignity as a person.

I was listening to Catholic Radio and author Dinesh D’souza. He warned about the militant atheists in the world today who are belligerant. Do not be confused. The flesh is not more important than the spirit within. “We are not some casual, meaningless product of evolution.” - Pope Benedict

You are willed by God and loved by Him. Remember, the atheist loves evolution because, for him, it removes God from his life.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Wolseley]

Ditto for Wolseley. No secret agendas, no book deals.

You’re right, ric. And since you have aways been unfailingly polite and courteous to me, I’ll give you an option that I won’t give to our materialist friends here: anything that you want to know about the book I recommended, I will cheerfully provide for you. Details, examples, excerpts, you name it, you got it. Ed, same goes for you, reggie, for you, too, and Memaw, for you too.

Just say the word.

Benedicat vos omnipotens Deus: Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus, amen.

 

[drpmjhess]

So the pattern is familiar. I could be wrong of course, but the whole thing here quickly brought back those events.

Barbarian, it is troubling. I have no idea where Ed’s loyalties lie – I don’t have a dog in that particular fight.

What I am concerned about, however, is maintaining a strong Catholic presence in the world of science. Last June conservative Bishop Robert Vasa of the Diocese of Bend, Oregon, published a silly piece in the Oregon Sentinel, arguing that more and more scientists are abandoning the idea of an ancient cosmos in favor of a 6,000 year-old earth. I wrote a response piece to the effect that it really costs the church credibility when stupid things are published in the name of Catholicism. It damages the scientific credentials of Catholics just when the Catholic voice is seriously needed in debates about stem cell research, human cloning, and the environment. The editor published my piece, and said that mine was the most temperate letter he had received in response to the bishop’s nonsense.

I wonder if the Michael Cremo types will join up with Harun Yahya, the Islamic creationist from Turkey, He’s not a Young Earther (accepting an old earth), but he mainains that all living foms have descended from identical ancestors, unchanged over hundreds of millions of years.

Petrus

 

[ricmat]

On another note, Christoph Cardinal Schoenborn met with 100 or so of us last week at a Dominican gathering, and I was pleasantly surprised that he firmly repudiated anti-evolutionist creationism. He was gently chided by one of the respondents for his line that “to date no one has yet found any fossil transitional forms,” admitting that his position still needed refinement.

Petrus

Here’s the on-line link for that talk (I think it’s the one you are talking about):

web.mac.com/sfcrews/DSPT/Link_to_Cardinal_Sch%C3%B6nborn,_O.P._Book_Presentation.html

Petrus, how do you define creationism? Or how does Cardinal Schoenborn define it for the purposes of your statement above?

There are few on this forum that are creationists (in the sense of a 6000 year old earth), but it seems that if one disagrees with Barbarian for any reason (i.e. minor details of the mechanism of evolution, and not the overall process or the outcome), he labels them “creationists”. He’s done that to me, and others as well. In my case, my sin is that I don’t believe that “random” mutations gets you to complex life in only 4 billion years. (I think the mutations occur over time, but with the hand of God involved).

All I’m suggesting is that you might want to ask folks what they believe before accepting labels pasted on them by others.

 

[drpmjhess]

We must always be on our guard against deception. The biology textbook is complete in and of itself. It includes no role for God and is, therefore, atheistic.

The airline flight manual is complete in and of itself. It includes no role for God and is, therefore, atheistic.

That does not change the fact that pilots are allowed to pray as they fly, and as a frequent flier, I am quite content if they do so (unless, of course, we are approaching a city’s downtown and the prayer is “Allah Akbar!”)

 

[edwest2]

“But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.” Pope Benedict

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece

God bless,
Ed

 

[Memaw]

“But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.” Pope Benedict

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece

God bless,
Ed

I am still waiting for someone to find a fossil that is in the process of changing from monkey to man. Or anything else changing from one species to another. In the meantime, I will keep my focus on God and faith in HIS Church. And with the help of the Sacraments, one day I will be able to Ask God Himself how HE did it. I am getting closer every day.

 

[drpmjhess]

“But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.” Pope Benedict
timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece
God bless,Ed

Right – there is no such thing as “a complete, scientifically proven theory.” Science by definition is open-ended, and provisional in its conclusions. Scientific discoveries can substantiate or negate a scientific theory (gravity, evolution, plate tectonics, Big Bang), but can never “prove” it in the sense of “prove” you are assuming. The theory of evolution has been more and more strongly supported every year since 1859, and we are confident it will continue to be validated. As a theory it is also productive of future discoveries, such as antibiotic resistance, and this fecundity is important to the utility of a theory.

Creationism – whether in its Young Earth or its Intelligent Design variants – has not been validated by any discoveries, and has not spawned a single productive line of inquiry demonstrating its utility as a theory; it has no research program. That is no doubt in part why the NSF does not offer grants to it, and why there are no ID conferences, departments, journals, or doctoral fellowships.

 

[drpmjhess]

I am still waiting for someone to find a fossil that is in the process of changing from monkey to man. .

You’ll have to wait a long time, because no biologist has ever claimed this. You also will have to wait a long time for someone to find a fossil showing a carrot changing into a redwood tree.

Neither of these has any bearing on the theory of evolution. You simply don’t understand the theory, but your ignorance of it does not make it incorrect…

 

[PhilVaz]

memaw << I am still waiting for someone to find a fossil that is in the process of changing from monkey to man. >>

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/homin2.jpg

(A) Pan troglodytes, modern chimpanzee; (B) Australopithecus africanus, 2.6 My; (C) Australopithecus africanus, 2.5 My; (D) Homo habilis, 1.9 My; (E) Homo habilis, 1.8 My; (F) Homo rudolfensis, 1.8 My; (G) primitive Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium, 1.75 My; (H) Homo ergaster (late H. erectus), 1.75 My; (I) Homo heidelbergensis, “Rhodesia man,” 300,000 - 125,000 y; (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, 70,000 y; (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, 60,000 y; (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, 45,000 y; (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon, 30,000 y; (N) modern Homo sapiens sapiens

Convinces most rational people. It is not a direct line, includes many side branches. Also it is not modern chimps to modern humans, the evidence shows we had “common ancestors” several million years ago. Here is a larger version. Here is more evidence of human-ape-hominid intermediates. Below are books that would convince anyone, you can find them at your university library:

Bones, Stones, and Molecules: “Out of Africa” and Human Origins by David W. Cameron and Colin P. Groves (Elsevier, 2004)
The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey by Spencer Wells (2003)
The Human Fossil Record (volume 1, forthcoming in 4 volumes) by Schwartz / Tattersall (John Wiley and Sons, 2002)
Extinct Humans by Ian Tattersall and Jeffrey H. Schwartz (Westview Press / Perseus Books, 2000)
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution edited by Steve Jones, Robert Martin, David Pilbeam (Cambridge Univ Press, 1992)
The Search for Eve by Michael H. Brown (Harper and Row, 1990)
Guide to Fossil Man by Michael H. Day (Univ of Chicago Press, 1986, 4th edition)
Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey (Simon and Schuster, 1981)

memaw << Or anything else changing from one species to another. >>

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/whaleevolution.gif

Thewissen on Whale Evolution
Gingerich on Whale Evolution
Overview article on the origin of whales

Does it for me. The whale transitions are very persuasive. Full books are now written on this, FOR KIDS (How Whales Walked into the Sea) and FOR ADULTS (The Emergence of Whales by Thewissen).

Phil P

 

[ricmat]

You’ll have to wait a long time, because no biologist has ever claimed this. You also will have to wait a long time for someone to find a fossil showing a carrot changing into a redwood tree.

Neither of these has any bearing on the theory of evolution. You simply don’t understand the theory, but your ignorance of it does not make it incorrect…

I think the point Memaw was making was not that monkeys per-se turned into man, but that species always evolve from other species, and that there seems to be a lack of actual evidence to that effect (for higher life forms at least). Monkeys to man is just a handy (albeit cliched and incorrect) stand in for that general principle.

Did somebody mention carrots?

BTW - As I recall, it was the non-expert average folks who saw Jesus for who he really was, and the experts (scribes, priests) who had eyes that could not see. But then religion is your field too (and I’m not an expert there either).

 

[ricmat]

(A) Pan troglodytes, modern chimpanzee; (B) Australopithecus africanus, 2.6 My; (C) Australopithecus africanus, 2.5 My; (D) Homo habilis, 1.9 My; (E) Homo habilis, 1.8 My; (F) Homo rudolfensis, 1.8 My; (G) primitive Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium, 1.75 My; (H) Homo ergaster (late H. erectus), 1.75 My; (I) Homo heidelbergensis, “Rhodesia man,” 300,000 - 125,000 y; (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, 70,000 y; (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, 60,000 y; (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, 45,000 y; (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon, 30,000 y; (N) modern Homo sapiens sapiens
Phil P

Phil, before I continue, I’d like to state that I’m not a YEC. And despite the huge lack of evidence, I believe in most of what evolution teaches (as I said on another thread, the hangup that I have is that I don’t think that 4 billion years is enough time for random mutations to get from the simplest life to man, I think that the hand of God had to intervene at points along the way…) Now, that having been said:

In this chain above (which you published), pick any 2 consecutive species, and tell me exactly which genes changed that resulted in the new species.

Thank you.

 

[edwest2]

You realize, all they are saying here is that random mutations combined with natural selection, made your brain bigger. Not enough time passed. And there was no reason for your brain to become bigger. Either you understand that God created man or think that the difference between a rock and a human is about 4 billion years.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

Convinces most rational people. It is not a direct line, includes many side branches. Also it is not modern chimps to modern humans, the evidence shows we had “common ancestors” several million years ago. Phil P

Phil, can you please post the link to that marvelous illustration of the whale sequence, unless it is proprietary? I’m giving a public lecture next week and would like to include that slide in my PowerPoint.

I have three talks in three weeks to diverse audiences:

(1) Sunday a sermon in a Unitarian church – they embrace evolution but are not at all clear on who or whether God is.

(2) Next week a public lecture to mountain and forest dwellers who are keen on their PLAS (Personal Lord and Savior), carry buck knives in their belts and shotguns in their Ford F-350s, and are not at all keen on evolution.

(3) The week after that, a higher-level Catholic seminar whose members have been reading in theology and science for a decade – that should be fun!

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

BTW - As I recall, it was the non-expert average folks who saw Jesus for who he really was, and the experts (scribes, priests) who had eyes that could not see. But then religion is your field too (and I’m not an expert there either).

I quite agree, Ricmat. But what the apostles saw in Jesus they saw through the eyes of faith, not the eyes of a scientific researcher.

 

[Ender]

Also it is not modern chimps to modern humans, the evidence shows we had “common ancestors” several million years ago. Here is a larger version. Here is more evidence of human-ape-hominid intermediates. Below are books that would convince anyone, you can find them at your university library

I don’t deny the evidence nor do I deny that it may all be correctly interpreted, nonetheless there is no evidence of the branching event between the hominid and the chimpanzee lineages.

memaw:

Or anything else changing from one species to another.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/whaleevolution.gif

Does it for me. The whale transitions are very persuasive.

Again, I don’t reject this progression but it should be pointed out that there are no common ancestors identified. The dorudon did not evolve into the basilosaurus or the mysticetes. There is nothing at all claiming any direct evolutionary lineage. All of the transitional species are theorized.

Ender

 

[PhilVaz]

Ric << In this chain above (which you published), pick any 2 consecutive species, and tell me exactly which genes changed that resulted in the new species. >>

Invalid question. What the picture shows above is a slowly changing skull pattern with species that are clearly BETWEEN chimps (apes) and humans. That is evidence for evolution, not creationism. We know this because science makes a prediction, which is:

“Based upon the consensus of numerous phylogenetic analyses, Pan troglodytes (the chimpanzee) is the closest living relative of humans. Thus, we expect that organisms lived in the past which were intermediate in morphology between humans and chimpanzees. Over the past century, many spectacular paleontological finds have identified such transitional hominid fossils.”

Bingo. Then we are provided with the picture. That’s evolution, not creationism.

The question is how to explain this from a “creationist” point of view? If God created Adam/Eve by the “poof” theory (they appeared from scratch “out of dust” literally or how one interprets Genesis 1-3), then what are all these clear intermediates between ape-human doing in the fossil record?

The evidence you desire from genetics is explained in the book I listed by Spencer Wells, The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey (2003 paperback). More evidence from genetics is explained in Theobald’s Evidence for Macroevolution article, or in the more detailed Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics, talking about pseudo-genes and why we have them in common with chimps, etc.

I may be wrong here, but it seems you don’t get genes from bones (therefore your question is invalid), you get genes from blood. And that is what is tested concerning the molecular evidence for evolution which shows our close relatedness to the chimps and with all of life.

Phil P