Keating, Catholic Answers take a swipe at evolution

[reggieM]

So Reggie, do you have any favorite theory on the development of the tail feathers of the peacock?

Best,

Tor

Tor – I just observe what is said and come up with my own theories on it.

A few theories I have on this are:

1. Evolution can’t explain this. Evolutionists should just say that but they don’t know. But instead they say, “it must have evolved” even though they don’t have the evidence.
2. This incident proves that evolution is basically meaningless and unimportant.
   I think about it – somebody wasted their precious time to claim that peacock feathers evolved through sex-selection. They put that in books and papers. It was a **long-held belief ** according to Discovery Magazine.
   Now we see that it’s false.
   But what happens?
   Nothing at all. This is no big deal. This idea that evolutionists presented as if it was science or “fact” is proven false and nothing changes at all. Evolution remains the same. Absolutely nothing in the world is altered or changed because this evolutionary story was proven false. Science goes on.
   Clearly, the theory was meaningless and useless. It doesn’t matter if the peacock’s tail evolved by sex-selection or not.
   Additionally, even though that was falsified – no evolutionists conclude that evolution cannot explain it. Instead, they continue to assert that evolution does explain it, even though they have no evidence.
   So, I learn about evolutionists.
   Again and again, I see the contradictions, reversals, contradictions, evasions and cover-ups. This is pretty standard stuff. There are all kinds of excuses.
   This was supposed to be science – instead, it was a fantasy. But nobody really cares about that.
3. Evolution is supposed to be as certain as physics, or so it is said.
   However, we have “long-held beliefs” in evolution, which suddenly are reversed and disproven. “Scientists were confounded” … you’ll see that quite often. “Peacock tails **probably evolved **by sex selection.” That was evolutionary certainty in action.
4. As I mentioned before, I would like to see the mathematical probability calculated for these claims that it “probably evolved”. How probably?
   Try to count the number of morphological changes needed for the peacock’s tail to evolve from a … whatever (which they don’t know).
   Maybe someone will say it evolved from a butterfly, because … it sort of looks like that.

 

[SFTor]

Tor – I just observe what is said and come up with my own theories on it.

A few theories I have on this are:

1. Evolution can’t explain this. Evolutionists should just say that but they don’t know. But instead they say, “it must have evolved” even though they don’t have the evidence.
2. This incident proves that evolution is basically meaningless and unimportant.
   I think about it – somebody wasted their precious time to claim that peacock feathers evolved through sex-selection. They put that in books and papers. It was a **long-held belief ** according to Discovery Magazine.
   Now we see that it’s false.
   But what happens?
   Nothing at all. This is no big deal. This idea that evolutionists presented as if it was science or “fact” is proven false and nothing changes at all. Evolution remains the same. Absolutely nothing in the world is altered or changed because this evolutionary story was proven false. Science goes on.
   Clearly, the theory was meaningless and useless. It doesn’t matter if the peacock’s tail evolved by sex-selection or not.
   Additionally, even though that was falsified – no evolutionists conclude that evolution cannot explain it. Instead, they continue to assert that evolution does explain it, even though they have no evidence.
   So, I learn about evolutionists.
   Again and again, I see the contradictions, reversals, contradictions, evasions and cover-ups. This is pretty standard stuff. There are all kinds of excuses.
   This was supposed to be science – instead, it was a fantasy. But nobody really cares about that.
3. Evolution is supposed to be as certain as physics, or so it is said.
   However, we have “long-held beliefs” in evolution, which suddenly are reversed and disproven. “Scientists were confounded” … you’ll see that quite often. “Peacock tails **probably evolved **by sex selection.” That was evolutionary certainty in action.
4. As I mentioned before, I would like to see the mathematical probability calculated for these claims that it “probably evolved”. How probably?
   Try to count the number of morphological changes needed for the peacock’s tail to evolve from a … whatever (which they don’t know).
   Maybe someone will say it evolved from a butterfly, because … it sort of looks like that.

Evolution unimportant? I suppose. It’s just knowledge, Reggie.

Sounds like the scientific process at work to me. You have described it perfectly. If you take away your dismissive comments and suspicious remarks that is. You think about it: it is no big deal that the theory was wrong, and it doesn’t disprove evolution as such. As you can see the scientific “establishment” freely admits that it had it wrong, and the search for a better explanation goes on. That seems very honest and self-critical to me. And don’t think there isn’t some biologist somewhere who isn’t frustrated that his work has been falsified.

I understand you dislike uncertainty, Reggie. I don’t have a problem with it.

 

[reggieM]

Evolution unimportant? I suppose. It’s just knowledge, Reggie.

Sounds like the scientific process at work to me. You have described it perfectly. If you take away your dismissive comments and suspicious remarks that is. You think about it: it is no big deal that the theory was wrong, and it doesn’t disprove evolution as such. As you can see the scientific “establishment” freely admits that it had it wrong, and the search for a better explanation goes on. That seems very honest and self-critical to me. And don’t think there isn’t some biologist somewhere who isn’t frustrated that his work has been falsified.

I understand you dislike uncertainty, Reggie. I don’t have a problem with it.

Well, I know what you mean, but let’s stop comparing evolution with something which is actually serious and important – like physics.

We can’t afford to have scientists just guess that a suspension bridge or a spacecraft or a guided missle “might work”. That is a real science and it has a real impact.

In the case of evolution, it is “just knowledge” – if it is even correct. It’s more like a fictional story. A story has some value, but we don’t say that the fiction is as certain as physics or mathematics.

Evolution is “no big deal” because it has very little meaning.

I would disagree that the results on the peacock do not invalidate evolution though. If evolution cannot explain the development of peacock feathers, why not look to an intelligent cause, as some scientists already are doing?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Well, I know what you mean, but let’s stop comparing evolution with something which is actually serious and important – like physics.

Turns out things like antibiotic protocols are critical to health for us. Biology is currently the cutting edge of science. Scientists like physicists and biologists do it for the sheer knowledge, not for any useful application. But it turns out that such things often do have useful applications.

We can’t afford to have scientists just guess that a suspension bridge or a spacecraft or a guided missle “might work”. That is a real science and it has a real impact.

No. That is real engineering. Science discovers truth; engineering applies it.

In the case of evolution, it is “just knowledge” – if it is even correct. It’s more like a fictional story. A story has some value, but we don’t say that the fiction is as certain as physics or mathematics.

Actually, evolution is more certain than gravity. We can observe evolution, and we can observe gravity. But we know why evolution works, while we haven’t yet figured out why gravity works.

“Biology is a harder science than physics.” - Nobel Laureate Physicist Erwin Schroedinger, in What is Life?

I would disagree that the results on the peacock do not invalidate evolution though.

Since the most comprehensive data, that of DNA, shows the descent of peacocks from other fowl, you’re wrong. Nothing is better shown in science.

If evolution cannot explain the development of peacock feathers,

Didn’t you read the link? The data clearly shows that the “eyes” are not novel structures, but are found in other related taxa. It turns out that the real attraction for females is not how it looks, but the sound when the male “shivers”, rustling the feathers.

They just looked in the wrong place. The real test, of course, would be to remove the train of feathers, and see how the males make out. I suspect that without the rustling, they’d be out of luck.

Why not look to an intelligent cause, as some scientists already are doing?

Mostly, because that approach has never produced any knowledge. God works so consistently in nature, it all looks like natural causes.

ID doesn’t work. And if it doesn’t do anything, what good is it?

 

[edwest2]

Intelligent Design points to the fact that an intelligence is required to bring a living thing that is ordered and structured into existence. Disorder, like an avalanche, does not require an intelligence. Life requires a preprogrammed order that did not create itself.

Human beings have a creative gift. It can be demonstrated. In our creativity we have something given to us by the One who created us.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Intelligent Design points to the fact that an intelligence is required to bring a living thing that is ordered and structured into existence.

The problem is that it can’t show “design” in anything that is natural. That’s a huge problem for ID. It doesn’t do anything. If it worked, scientists would be using it, no matter who disapproved. But it’s useless to science.

Disorder, like an avalanche, does not require an intelligence. Life requires a preprogrammed order that did not create itself.

One of the problems for ID is that demoting God to a mere “progammer” is an implicit insult to Him.

Human beings have a creative gift. It can be demonstrated. In our creativity we have something given to us by the One who created us.

Our “creativity” is not what His is like. And it’s wrong to suggest He’s just a much more capable version of us.

 

[reggieM]

Human beings have a creative gift. It can be demonstrated. In our creativity we have something given to us by the One who created us.

That is an excellent point. We have a creative gift that can be demonstrated. Plus, we can see the same kind of creative expressions in nature itself.

 

[redneck22]

Originally Posted by edwest2
Human beings have a creative gift. It can be demonstrated. In our creativity we have something given to us by the One who created us.

That is an excellent point. We have a creative gift that can be demonstrated. Plus, we can see the same kind of creative expressions in nature itself.

Probably has something to do with what Genesis says about being created in His image from the dust of the ground. So we can create and love, yet we make a poor reflection, due to sin.

 

[MindOverMatter]

The problem is that it can’t show “design” in anything that is natural. That’s a huge problem for ID. It doesn’t do anything. If it worked, scientists would be using it, no matter who disapproved. But it’s useless to science.

Why can’t you show design in anything that is natural? One Merely needs to find information that works toward a meaningfull end. Organisms for example.

 

[edwest2]

The problem is that it can’t show “design” in anything that is natural. That’s a huge problem for ID. It doesn’t do anything. If it worked, scientists would be using it, no matter who disapproved. But it’s useless to science.

One of the problems for ID is that demoting God to a mere “progammer” is an implicit insult to Him.

Our “creativity” is not what His is like. And it’s wrong to suggest He’s just a much more capable version of us.

What is wrong is suggesting that God did not give us gifts of creative ability. I was explicit about this.

Your use of emotional terms like insult is in no way appropriate. Cardinal Schoenborn tells us that purpose and design can be observed in nature through natural reason.

nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html

I can only conclude that your remarks are reflective of an agenda to bury these observations.

Your taking the word programmer out of context was inappropriate. God has established the natures of the various forms of life which expresses itself outwardly for the good of that particular form of life. The programming analogy was to show that information does not create itself. Much like a programmer, an Intelligence must create it and order it. Jesus used a seed to describe faith. He made the first seeds.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

Your use of emotional terms like insult is in no way appropriate. Cardinal Schoenborn tells us that purpose and design can be observed in nature through natural reason.

nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html

That essay contains a lot of truth which is often covered-up.

The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, **proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design **in the natural world, including the world of living things.

Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the **overwhelming evidence for design in biology **is ideology, not science.

Naturally, the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees: “Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason.” It adds: “We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance.”

Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of “chance and necessity” are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.

 

[The_Barbarian]

What is wrong is suggesting that God did not give us gifts of creative ability. I was explicit about this.

That’s not a problem. What’s a problem is using what humans do, to compare with God’s creative works. And yest, that is an insult.

The Cardinal is not doing this, since he has clarified that he means “design” only in the sense of “intent.”

Your taking the word programmer out of context was inappropriate.

Words mean things. Demoting God to “programmer” is not appropriate.

God has established the natures of the various forms of life which expresses itself outwardly for the good of that particular form of life.

Why not just admit that it is Creation?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Why can’t you show design in anything that is natural?

From a Christian perspective, it’s because it wasn’t designed. It was created.

One Merely needs to find information that works toward a meaningfull end.

That would include both designed things and natural things.

Organisms for example.

We see no sign of a design. Indeed, whenever we’ve taken a look at natural things promoted as “design” they turned out to be products of natural processes.

If you weaken “design” to mean mere intent, it works, but then you keep coming back to the question of why not just admit that it’s Creation?

The reason, it seems clear, is that IDers hope to sneak God into school in disguise. Renaming “creation” as “design”, they thought maybe it would work. Dover pretty much put an end to that.

 

[edwest2]

Your agenda is clear. Repetitive statements do not make them true. “Finding Design in Nature” are Cardinal Schoenborn’s words. He obviously believes there is actual design in nature. Stop being provocative and combative please.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

From a Christian perspective, it’s because it wasn’t designed. It was created.

That would include both designed things and natural things.

We see no sign of a design. Indeed, whenever we’ve taken a look at natural things promoted as “design” they turned out to be products of natural processes.

If you weaken “design” to mean mere intent, it works, but then you keep coming back to the question of why not just admit that it’s Creation?

The reason, it seems clear, is that IDers hope to sneak God into school in disguise. Renaming “creation” as “design”, they thought maybe it would work. Dover pretty much put an end to that.

Your obsession with political ideas needs to be pointed out. There is a real theory of Intelligent Design as opposed to the political nonsense called ID and the associated political group called IDers. Dover didn’t put an end to anything. I read the trial transcript. Aside from Mr. Behe, others testified and I don’t think a trial changed their minds.

“sneak God into school” appears to me to be your idea of the greatest evil. Fortunately, God sneaks into public schools daily, carried in the hearts of students who go there.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Your obsession with political ideas needs to be pointed out.

The Dover trial settled that. The “obsession” was on the part of people trying to establish a religion as science. It’s not political as far as I can see; it’s a relgious movement.

There is a real theory of Intelligent Design as opposed to the political nonsense called ID and the associated political group called IDers.

I’d be pleased to see that one. So far, no one can even frame a hypothesis for ID, much less test it.

Dover didn’t put an end to anything.

It ended the sham of ID as science.

I read the trial transcript. Aside from Mr. Behe, others testified and I don’t think a trial changed their minds.

Intelligent design originator Phillip Johnson admitted the trial was a “train wreck” for intelligent design.

“sneak God into school” appears to me to be your idea of the greatest evil.

That’s pretty much your invention. But it is an implicit blasphemy.

Fortunately, God sneaks into public schools daily, carried in the hearts of students who go there.

If you think so, you don’t know much about public schools. Kids have a right to bring Bibles and other religous articles to school, and to pray in a non-disruptive manner. My daughter did an “at the flagpole” prayer with her friends in school, and no one could stop her.

No sneaking required, if you’re honest. That’s why ID is having such problems.

 

[reggieM]

“sneak God into school” appears to me to be your idea of the greatest evil. Fortunately, God sneaks into public schools daily, carried in the hearts of students who go there.

So true – and beautifully stated. :clapping: