Keating, Catholic Answers take a swipe at evolution

[SFTor]

Pope John Paul II outlined the correct relationship between science and faith, but what is usually mentioned here is only the science side. For Catholics who live in the full reality of the Living God, both science and divine revelation are linked. If (scientific) truth cannot contradict (divinely given) truth then there is no problem for the Catholic. The only problem that ever arises is the idolatry of the mind of man. As Pope Benedict stated, there are other areas of reason that we still need.

Science is limited by its own method, and therefore, can only reveal a narrow portion of reality. The Church can and does complete the picture.

God bless,
Ed

Science sometimes does contradict Church teaching. Galileo and Giordano Bruno come to mind.

 

[edwest2]

Do you know the entire Gallileo story? Do you know what the area of conflict was?

God bless,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

And by the way: the concept of irreducible complexity is not scientific. It is a construct by the ID crowd, and is in and of itself irreducibly complex, and therefore false.

You just offered your philosophical opinion on this matter. What you said cannot be verified or tested through a scientific method.

Philosophically, you reject the concept of irreducible complexity.

 

[SFTor]

It was a bit of a joke, Reggie.

But it has been demonstrated that “irreducible complexity” is most often a fallacy.

Here’s a highly simplified example: you build a small dam across a river. The dam serves its purpose, which is to create a reservoir. At a later time you put in boards for a walkway across the top of the dam so people have a nice surface to walk across. You decide to remove the dam, but you realize that the functionality as a thoroughfare is worth keeping. You do a little extra work on the bridge span, then you remove all the stones in the middle. No more dam, only a bridge is left.

Voila: an irreducibly complex system—remove any part of it, and the “bridge” falls down. Nice one, isn’t it?

 

[edwest2]

A static physical example is no comparison to a living biological example. How does one add or remove a part from a living cell without affecting the interdependent actions of all the other parts? This is a direct question, not a political question. I see too many questions like this regarded negatively because of the political aspect and not from the honest question aspect.

God bless,
Ed

 

[SFTor]

Do you know the entire Gallileo story? Do you know what the area of conflict was?

God bless,
Ed

Galileo Galilei was ordered to recant his heliocentric model of the solar system (well, not really his, but Copernicus’s) by the Catholic Church. He was later placed under house arrest by the Inquisition.

 

[SFTor]

A static physical example is no comparison to a living biological example. How does one add or remove a part from a living cell without affecting the interdependent actions of all the other parts? This is a direct question, not a political question. I see too many questions like this regarded negatively because of the political aspect and not from the honest question aspect.

God bless,
Ed

That goes way beyond my field of expertise, Ed. It’s like asking you about the conjugation of Norwegian verbs. But the answer is found in the (highly simplified) example I gave. Today you cannot, which does not mean that the system did not evolve from simpler forms that did not have all the internal systems we see today in a cell.

 

[buffalo]

Galileo Galilei was ordered to recant his heliocentric model of the solar system (well, not really his, but Copernicus’s) by the Catholic Church. He was later placed under house arrest by the Inquisition.

The Swan’s Song of Galileo’s Myth

 

[buffalo]

** Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings

…**The high tide of adaptationism floated a motley navy, but it may now be on the ebb. If it does turn out that natural selection isn’t what drives evolution, a lot of loose speculations will be stranded high, dry and looking a little foolish. Induction over the history of science suggests that the best theories we have today will prove more or less untrue at the latest by tomorrow afternoon. In science, as elsewhere, ‘hedge your bets’ is generally good advice.

 

[SFTor]

The Swan’s Song of Galileo’s Myth

Just a quick question for clarification’s sake:

was it Galileo who was imprisoned by the Inquisition, or the Inquisition that was imprisoned by Galileo?

Or is somebody saying that he deserved it?

 

[reggieM]

It was a bit of a joke, Reggie.

But it has been demonstrated that “irreducible complexity” is most often a fallacy.

Here’s a highly simplified example: you build a small dam across a river. The dam serves its purpose, which is to create a reservoir. At a later time you put in boards for a walkway across the top of the dam so people have a nice surface to walk across. You decide to remove the dam, but you realize that the functionality as a thoroughfare is worth keeping. You do a little extra work on the bridge span, then you remove all the stones in the middle. No more dam, only a bridge is left.

Voila: an irreducibly complex system—remove any part of it, and the “bridge” falls down. Nice one, isn’t it?

Ok, that was a good joke – but I still think your example doesn’t quite work in some ways.

First, when “you decide to remove the dam”, the water starts coming out. Thus, the dam doesn’t work any more. Second, of course you’re an intelligent designer who decided to remove the dam and put boards on a walkway. Darwinism claims that the boards will show up there on their own, and also that the dam will disappear because holding back the water wasn’t necessary.

If the dam wasn’t necessary, then that’s a different matter.

Irreducible complexity means that all the parts were needed and the thing can’t function without the parts in place.

A classic example (there are even better ones but I’m saving those for another day) is the bacterial flagellum.

The flagellum is a tiny machine with an engine that propells it. The engine has a rotor, bushings, propeller, U-Joint, and a motor that runs at 100,000 RPM.

The problem is, how can a slow, gradual accidental process create that? All of the parts have to fit together in order for the machine to work.

 

[buffalo]

Just a quick question for clarification’s sake:

was it Galileo who was imprisoned by the Inquisition, or the Inquisition that was imprisoned by Galileo?

Or is somebody saying that he deserved it

He was never imprisoned, he was placed under house arrest.

 

[reggieM]

Today you cannot, which does not mean that the system did not evolve from simpler forms that did not have all the internal systems we see today in a cell.

That is true, but it would be wrong to claim that evolution did it before it could be shown how it developed.

 

[SFTor]

Ok, that was a good joke – but I still think your example doesn’t quite work in some ways.

First, when “you decide to remove the dam”, the water starts coming out. Thus, the dam doesn’t work any more. Second, of course you’re an intelligent designer who decided to remove the dam and put boards on a walkway. Darwinism claims that the boards will show up there on their own, and also that the dam will disappear because holding back the water wasn’t necessary.

If the dam wasn’t necessary, then that’s a different matter.

Irreducible complexity means that all the parts were needed and the thing can’t function without the parts in place.

A classic example (there are even better ones but I’m saving those for another day) is the bacterial flagellum.

The flagellum is a tiny machine with an engine that propells it. The engine has a rotor, bushings, propeller, U-Joint, and a motor that runs at 100,000 RPM.

The problem is, how can a slow, gradual accidental process create that? All of the parts have to fit together in order for the machine to work.

Reggie:

You’re saying that God created the flagellum?

 

[SFTor]

That is true, but it would be wrong to claim that evolution did it before it could be shown how it developed.

They’re working on it, like the busy little bees they are.

 

[SFTor]

He was never imprisoned, he was placed under house arrest.

Oh, then. Excuse me. And the question still stands, I think?

 

[edwest2]

Here is another account from the Library of this web site:

catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

You’ll note that Galileo came into conflict with the Church by attempting to take his theory out of the scientific realm and impose it on the spiritual. The Church did eventually accept the theory but was initially cautious.

God bless,
Ed

 

[SFTor]

Here is another account from the Library of this web site:

catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

You’ll note that Galileo came into conflict with the Church by attempting to take his theory out of the scientific realm and impose it on the spiritual. The Church did eventually accept the theory but was initially cautious.

God bless,
Ed

So he was put under house arrest for his beliefs. That’s not nice either.

Best,

Tor

 

[Wirraway]

God has authority over the laws of nature and he can interfere with them. He is not bound to them. They are not sacred laws. Nothing about God is mechanical,and he does not work in nature in a mechanical fashion. He works in nature by his personal involvement. The creation of living creatures is personal creation.
Everything that lives has spirit,which is from God. The very processes of life come into existence and are sustained by spirit.
Laws cannot make creatures come into existence.

See post 68.

my guess is that God doesn’t appreciate you explaining to Him what He can or can’t do and by what mechanisms He should create things.

on the other hand, I sometimes disagree with newtonian physics, especially gravity. since, as you see it, these aren’t really “laws”, I’d appreciate you putting in a good word for me with Him next time I fly my sailplane. altering some of the causation rules would be nice too, come to think of it.

 

[edwest2]

That goes way beyond my field of expertise, Ed. It’s like asking you about the conjugation of Norwegian verbs. But the answer is found in the (highly simplified) example I gave. Today you cannot, which does not mean that the system did not evolve from simpler forms that did not have all the internal systems we see today in a cell.

Since you like physical examples, here is one. Imagine placing all the parts for a car’s engine on the ground and waiting one billion years. There have been earthquakes and strong winds and floods and disturbances by local animals, but the engine cannot assemble itself. Now imagine the car engine running in a car. Next, imagine adding or removing a part while it’s running. Finally, operating in the role of ‘nature,’ you have no idea where the part should go.

God bless,
Ed