Is The Theory of Evolution mandatory for the modern worldview

[The_Barbarian]

The Catholic Church does not endorse all theories of evolution. It specifically does not endorse those theories that do not include God.

No, that’s wrong. It specifically does not endorse those theories that deny God, not those that do not include God.

It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.

As the Pope says, scientists who make statements about God based on scientific theories have gone beyond the proper boundaries of science.

 

[drpmjhess]

Evolution does not include God at all. Science doesn’t address God at all. Science is silent about God. Science isn’t interested in God. That doesn’t mean that science is against God.

Correct. Science limits itself to methodological naturalism. One it introduces causal factors from outside the observable, testable, measurable realm, it ceases to be science.

 

[Ender]

I would need to see a source for that please. Wikipedia counts 38 animal phyla, 11 plant and 6 fungi.

What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr 2001 (p 59, paperback) “Altogether some 70 or 80 different structural types (body plans) appeared in the late Precambrian and early Cambrian, but apparently no new ones appeared at any later period.”

Mostly after, my chart had oldest (Vendian) at the bottom and newest (Recent) at the top.

I won’t argue whether you are right or Mayr is right, I will only point out the stunning difference in your positions. One would expect a lot more unanimity given the “settled” nature of evolutionary science. I chose Mayr’s book, by the way, so I could quote from someone who has impeccable scientific credentials but I have found that even he doesn’t seem to qualify.

Science is ruthless about dropping any proposals that do not come up to the mark. By now the theory of evolution has assembled some very good mechanisms, all well tested.

I know, but the urge to point out the discrepancies is irresistible.

Firstly, the Cambrian explosion is only “very rapid” in geological terms - it took 5 to 15 million years.

“All currently living phyla of animals, about 35 of them, were long thought to have originated during a period of only about 10 million years in the early Cambrian. How could one explain such short-lived exuberance of structural innovation at that period?” (p 60)
That is, 10 million years is very rapid in evolutionary terms as well. This problem was resolved not by claiming that 10 million years was long enough but by “determining” that the period of evolution was actually much longer than that.

as The Barbarian has pointed out

If you think he has made a useful point you will have to present it yourself; I no longer read his posts.

evolution at varying rates is not a problem.

There is more here than merely varying rates; the questions of very rapid evolution and stasis have not yet been resolved. “When we look at what happens to the genotype during evolutionary change, particularly related to such extreme phenomena as highly rapid evolution and complete stasis, we must admit that we do not fully understand them.” (p 272)

Ender

 

[drpmjhess]

Thats what you think, you just wait for the “REAL” BIG BOOM, the end of the world, your’s, mine and or everyones. Then you’ll see whose “out of gas”.

We won’t be around to see that. Even if an asteroid were to collide with the earth again as one did 65 million years ago, that would not constitute the end of the earth. If might bring about the extinction of the human species, but the earth as a planetary body – and probably some living species – would survive.

 

[The_Barbarian]

It is a common creationist problem, that they take statements that are several decades (or longer) old, and compare them to more recent findings, and present this as proof that scientists are in general disagreement.

In fact, Mayr wrote his statement when little was known of Vendian fauna, or the ancient basis for life. We now realize that many phyla originated long before the Cambrian, (some of which were extinct by the Cambrian) and that the Cambrian explosion was to some degree an artifact of full body exoskeletons, which produced many more fossilized individuals.

As usual, plugging one’s ears is pretty much its own punishment.

 

[edwest2]

No, that’s wrong. It specifically does not endorse those theories that deny God, not those that do not include God.

It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.

As the Pope says, scientists who make statements about God based on scientific theories have gone beyond the proper boundaries of science.

Your job here, apparently, is obfuscation and misdirection. As Pope Benedict stated about the theory of evolution, and in relation to the words of Pope John Paul II: “But it is also true that theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

It is a common creationist problem, that they take statements that are several decades (or longer) old, and compare them to more recent findings, and present this as proof that scientists are in general disagreement.
…
As usual, plugging one’s ears is pretty much its own punishment.

Than sad thing is, Barbarian, that being taught this kind of simplistic creationism
(1) deprives children of potential careers in science
(2) necessitates remedial scientific instruction later on, and
(3) obscures for the creationist the beauty of how God works with Nature.

 

[drpmjhess]

Your job here, apparently, is obfuscation and misdirection. As Pope Benedict stated about the theory of evolution, and in relation to the words of Pope John Paul II: "But it is also true that theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory."God bless,Ed

This is no obfuscation – Barbarian is quite right. The popes are right, and what they say applies to all scientific theory. By definition, no scientific theory is ever “complete” and “proven.” All theories are provisional and subject to later correction. Do you think Newtonian physics is “a complete, scientifically proven theory”? Guess again – someone came along in the early twentieth century to upset the apple cart!

 

[Namesake]

Your job here, apparently, is obfuscation and misdirection. As Pope Benedict stated about the theory of evolution, and in relation to the words of Pope John Paul II: “But it is also true that theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

God bless,
Ed

Are you aware that some work still needs to be done on gravity? It isn’t settled science because nothing in science is ever settled. Science is never complete, it is always asking more questions.

In fact, scientific theories that have more heuristic potential are generally more highly valued precisely because they disclose more questions than they answer.

 

[ricmat]

By definition, no scientific theory is ever “complete” and “proven.” All theories are provisional and subject to later correction. Do you think Newtonian physics is “a complete, scientifically proven theory”? Guess again – someone came along in the early twentieth century to upset the apple cart!

I certainly agree with this. On the other hand, some scientists (and even more alarming, the general public) seem to believe that either science HAS explained everything, or will soon and it’s only a matter of time. And these same scientists seem to ignore the fact that their own apple cart (evolution) may get overturned in a major way.

But this having been said, if by definition “no” scientific theory is ever complete and proven, why would Pope John Paul II need to state: “But it is also true that theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”?

Edwest and I don’t agree on everything obviously, but I agree with Ed that the Pope sees a danger here and is sending us a message. I think the message is that science (as a whole, not speaking of anybody here or anybody in particular) is replacing God as the new god, and the theory of evolution (as commonly presented) is their weapon of choice. On another thread, I posted results of a survey of college professors, and (as I recollect) between 60% and 70% of those teaching biology self identified themselves as atheists. Those percentages are obviously much larger than the world as a whole.

It may not be effective at CAF because our faith is strong, but I think one has to admit that they are unfortunately making inroads elsewhere.

 

[drpmjhess]

Edwest and I don’t agree on everything obviously, but I agree with Ed that the Pope sees a danger here and is sending us a message. I think the message is that science (as a whole, not speaking of anybody here or anybody in particular) is replacing God as the new god, and the theory of evolution (as commonly presented) is their weapon of choice.

Ricmat, it is not science that is replacing God, but scientism, a philosophical position that makes the illegitimate move from methodological naturalism – a neutral stance presupposed by science – to metaphysical naturalism.

So don’t blame science; blame philosophical ignorance on the part of scientists, religious believers, and the general public. Fundie Creationists agree with Dawkinsian atheists that evolution = atheism, and they are both dead wrong. That’s why my kids are getting sound philosophy, age-appropriately in their elementary years.

Petrus

 

[ricmat]

Ricmat, it is not science that is replacing God, but scientism, a philosophical position that makes the illegitimate move from methodological naturalism – a neutral stance presupposed by science – to metaphysical naturalism.

So don’t blame science; blame philosophical ignorance on the part of scientists, religious believers, and the general public. Fundie Creationists agree with Dawkinsian atheists that evolution = atheism, and they are both dead wrong. That’s why my kids are getting sound philosophy, age-appropriately in their elementary years.

Petrus

Right, distinction noted.

As an aside, have you read “The Science Before Science?”

 

[The_Barbarian]

edwest2 writes:
**The Catholic Church does not endorse all theories of evolution. It specifically does not endorse those theories that do not include God. **

Barbarian observes:
No, that’s wrong. It specifically does not endorse those theories that deny God, not those that do not include God.

It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.

As the Pope says, scientists who make statements about God based on scientific theories have gone beyond the proper boundaries of science.

Your job here, apparently, is obfuscation and misdirection.

In that particular post, it was correction of one who tried to put words in the mouth of the Pope. He claimed that the Church does not endorse theories that do not include God, while the Pope said the opposite, that the Church does not endorse theories that deny God’s role in the world.

As Pope Benedict stated about the theory of evolution, and in relation to the words of Pope John Paul II: “But it is also true that theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

As drpmjhess reminded you, no scientific theory is a “complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Do you see where I corrected a rather blatant misrepresentation of the Church’s teaching? That you consider this to be “obfuscation and misdirection” is very telling.

 

[drpmjhess]

Right, distinction noted.

As an aside, have you read “The Science Before Science?”

Ricmat, this looks like an interesting book. It’s endorsed by some fairly right-wing groups, but his NeoThomism is certainly mainstream. I’m intrigued to get hold of it and see how he treats biology. Have you read it? If so, what is your opinion?

 

[ricmat]

Ricmat, this looks like an interesting book. It’s endorsed by some fairly right-wing groups, but his NeoThomism is certainly mainstream. I’m intrigued to get hold of it and see how he treats biology. Have you read it? If so, what is your opinion?

Yes, I read it. I have a good science background, but none in philosophy. The book covers both a lot of science and philosophy. The philosophical aspects were difficult for me to latch on to because the language used is similar to science jargon, but with different meanings (matter, being, beings of reason, knowledge…).

It did give me a basic understanding of the philosophical arguments for a spiritual soul, how it is that we really “know”, and other things which don’t come to mind right now.

The main premise is that the real basis of science is philosophy (which today is often overlooked).

It’s a book that I want to read again, but I loaned it out and I haven’t gotten it back again (that seems to happen a lot).

 

[edwest2]

edwest2 writes:
**The Catholic Church does not endorse all theories of evolution. It specifically does not endorse those theories that do not include God. **

Barbarian observes:
No, that’s wrong. It specifically does not endorse those theories that deny God, not those that do not include God.

It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.

As the Pope says, scientists who make statements about God based on scientific theories have gone beyond the proper boundaries of science.

In that particular post, it was correction of one who tried to put words in the mouth of the Pope. He claimed that the Church does not endorse theories that do not include God, while the Pope said the opposite, that the Church does not endorse theories that deny God’s role in the world.

As drpmjhess reminded you, no scientific theory is a “complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Do you see where I corrected a rather blatant misrepresentation of the Church’s teaching? That you consider this to be “obfuscation and misdirection” is very telling.

Your accusatory tone will get you nowhere. Either the Pope said what he said or he didn’t. While atheists were dancing in the streets that the Catholic Church “accepts” the theory of evolution, both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict were saying that no theory of evolution that excludes God is worthy of belief. And the current media climate that denounces religious belief in general, and Christianity in particular, is not going unnoticed by Pope Benedict.

What you are doing is promoting only those words that support the theory of evolution while ignoring those words that warn against what it is being used for and how it affects the thinking of the average person.

Popular perception and mass media are powerful influences, especially in societies with loosened moral foundations, which describes North America and Western Europe perfectly.

Science is only a tool and it needs to be compared to divinely revealed truths to be truly useful in the world. Science, by itself, can be used for good or ill. At present, only the Catholic Church has the authority to integrate the information coming from science with the information coming from God to ensure that science is not abused by humans and, especially, so that believers can understand science in light of what they believe. Which, as I wrote, is so very essential in a time where the moral underpinnings of the Western world are in the toilet.

God bless,
Ed

 

[ricmat]

What you are doing is promoting only those words that support the theory of evolution while ignoring those words that warn against what it is being used for and how it affects the thinking of the average person.

Popular perception and mass media are powerful influences, especially in societies with loosened moral foundations, which describes North America and Western Europe perfectly.

Ed, this is what bothers me a lot too.

It seems like there is a move to totally separate religion and science into different domains. While this sounds reasonable on the surface, it is actually a retreat for the religious side. The plan seems to be to lose as little ground as possible, but never to advance. And in the long term, this is still a retreat.

Does God want us to have science, and God as separate domains?

 

[Namesake]

Does God want us to have science, and God as separate domains?

I don’t know what God wants, nor do you, but science and religion must stay separate or we risk losing both.

Religion addresses the supernatural and science is totally silent about the supernatural, by definition.

 

[ricmat]

I don’t know what God wants, nor do you, but science and religion must stay separate or we risk losing both.

Religion addresses the supernatural and science is totally silent about the supernatural, by definition.

Well, I disagree that “we risk losing both.”

And I’ll go with “God wants us to keep him in all aspects of our life, even science.”

Science (lately) refuses to even investigate those non-supernatural things which might lead someone on a path to the conclusion that God exists, or tell us something of his nature (no pun intended, or was it?).

It is not an inherent defect in science that it cannot search for God, it is our decision that we will not use science to look for God.

Obviously, science cannot prove that God exists. But as several have pointed out on this thread,

By definition, no scientific theory is ever “complete” and “proven.”

OK, I buy that. So let’s use science to come up with an incomplete and unproven picture of who and what God is, just like we do for less important things like evolution.

Some will counter that “If we search for God and don’t find him, then that gives ammunition to the atheists.” My counter to that is that what we’re doing now is a slow retreat in a vehicle that has only a reverse gear. We need to start going forward.

 

[Namesake]

Well, I disagree that “we risk losing both.”

And I’ll go with “God wants us to keep him in all aspects of our life, even science.”

Science (lately) refuses to even investigate those non-supernatural things which might lead someone on a path to the conclusion that God exists, or tell us something of his nature (no pun intended, or was it?).

It is not an inherent defect in science that it cannot search for God, it is our decision that we will not use science to look for God.

Obviously, science cannot prove that God exists. But as several have pointed out on this thread,

OK, I buy that. So let’s use science to come up with an incomplete and unproven picture of who and what God is, just like we do for less important things like evolution.

Some will counter that “If we search for God and don’t find him, then that gives ammunition to the atheists.” My counter to that is that what we’re doing now is a slow retreat in a vehicle that has only a reverse gear. We need to start going forward.

It’s painfully simple really. Science deals with the natural universe and religion deals with the supernatural universe. Science deals with materialism and religion deals with spiritualism.

If religion begins dabbling in science it produces bad science or even psuedo-science, like intelligent design. If science starts dabbling in religion it begins as error because science becomes a god.

I really don’t understand why people suggest combining two mutually exclusive disciplines.

And BTW, science never avoids exploring. What non-supernatural things does science refuse to explore that could lead to the conclusion that God exists?