Kenneth Miller and Evolution

[Dark_Warrior]

How are we to understand creation/evolution/free will?

I’ve been reading a lot of Kenneth Miller. “Finding Darwin’s God” and recently “Only A Theory.” I know Mr. Miller is a devout Catholic, but, according to him, he believes God brought the universe into existence, then allowed it to flow freely, letting things evolve on their own, for true freedom and free will, and not governed by God as a puppet master.

I also have been reading “Chance or Purpose?” by Cardinal Christopher and in his book, and according to the Church, God has created EVERYTHING and that the universe is not some free flowing system ungoverned by God.

So, which is it? Mr. Kenneth calls God the creator but doesn’t think He created things such as the misqueto, or the *physical * human body, rather, only the human soul and the absolute beginnings of the universe, so to allow free will to transpire.

Mr. Christopher believes God sustains ALL life, and is involved with His creation, which seems more alligned with the Church.

Am I misunderstanding Kenneth Miller? Who is right? I mean it makes sense for the idea of a free flowing universe to allow our freedom, but then, where is there room left for God?

Perhaps I’m blowing this all out of proportion

 

[SedesDomi]

How are we to understand creation/evolution/free will?

I’ve been reading a lot of Kenneth Miller. “Finding Darwin’s God” and recently “Only A Theory.” I know Mr. Miller is a devout Catholic, but, according to him, he believes God brought the universe into existence, then allowed it to flow freely, letting things evolve on their own, for true freedom and free will, and not governed by God as a puppet master.

I also have been reading “Chance or Purpose?” by Cardinal Christopher and in his book, and according to the Church, God has created EVERYTHING and that the universe is not some free flowing system ungoverned by God.

So, which is it? Mr. Kenneth calls God the creator but doesn’t think He created things such as the misqueto, or the *physical * human body, rather, only the human soul and the absolute beginnings of the universe, so to allow free will to transpire.

Mr. Christopher believes God sustains ALL life, and is involved with His creation, which seems more alligned with the Church.

Am I misunderstanding Kenneth Miller? Who is right? I mean it makes sense for the idea of a free flowing universe to allow our freedom, but then, where is there room left for God?

Perhaps I’m blowing this all out of proportion

I’m sure Miller believes that God somehow is still ‘subtly pushing’ evolution in some way, without God actually acting as a puppet-master causing every little thing to happen.

 

[ricmat]

How are we to understand creation/evolution/free will?

I’ve been reading a lot of Kenneth Miller. “Finding Darwin’s God” and recently “Only A Theory.” I know Mr. Miller is a devout Catholic, but, according to him, he believes God brought the universe into existence, then allowed it to flow freely, letting things evolve on their own, for true freedom and free will, and not governed by God as a puppet master.

I also have been reading “Chance or Purpose?” by Cardinal Christopher and in his book, and according to the Church, God has created EVERYTHING and that the universe is not some free flowing system ungoverned by God.

So, which is it? Mr. Kenneth calls God the creator but doesn’t think He created things such as the misqueto, or the *physical * human body, rather, only the human soul and the absolute beginnings of the universe, so to allow free will to transpire.

Mr. Christopher believes God sustains ALL life, and is involved with His creation, which seems more alligned with the Church.

Am I misunderstanding Kenneth Miller? Who is right? I mean it makes sense for the idea of a free flowing universe to allow our freedom, but then, where is there room left for God?

Perhaps I’m blowing this all out of proportion

Mankind’s free will has nothing to do with a free-flowing universe. Free will has meaning only in the context of moral decision making. Amongst created things, only mankind has the capability understand good and evil, and to go against the nature God wants us to have (i.e. being good).

Given that free will is a theological / moral concept, I’d go with the Cardinal on this one.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I just want to know two things…

Why crocodiles are virtually unchanged since the time of dinosaurs and why there is no link in macro evolution?

 

[rossum]

I just want to know two things…

Why crocodiles are virtually unchanged since the time of dinosaurs

Short answer. If a population is well suited to its environment and the environment does not change, or only changes very little, then that population will only change a little itself.

Not all fossil crocodiles were similar to living species - Simosuchus from Madagascar was probably herbivorous or possibly omnivorous.

and why there is no link in macro evolution?

I am not sure what your question is here, could you rephrase it please.

rossum

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Short answer. If a population is well suited to its environment and the environment does not change, or only changes very little, then that population will only change a little itself.

Not all fossil crocodiles were similar to living species - Simosuchus from Madagascar was probably herbivorous or possibly omnivorous.

I am not sure what your question is here, could you rephrase it please.

rossum

You know what Macro Evolution is. So where is the proof?

I have only seen theories that were later rejected and theories that are unsubstantiated. Seems to be a “world is flat” type of science.

 

[rossum]

You know what Macro Evolution is. So where is the proof?

Thank you for clarifying your question. Macro evolution is evolution at or above the level of species. The evidence for this is the observed emergence of new species, both in the lab and in the wild.

For an example of the emergence of new species in the wild have a look at the Creation Ministries International article: Brisk Biters about the emergence of a new species of mosquito in the London Underground.

For more comprehensive treatments see Observed Instances of Speciation and 29+ Evidences of Macroevolution.

I have only seen theories that were later rejected and theories that are unsubstantiated. Seems to be a “world is flat” type of science.

Some parts of early evolutionary theories have indeed been rejected - Darwin’s gemmules were replaced by Mendel’s genes. Current evolutionary theory is most certainly not “unsubstantiated”. I have refered to a samll part of the evidence substantiating it above. For an introduction to even more I suggest that you start here: Understanding Evolution.

rossum

 

[JacktheCatholic]

In speaking of Macro evolution I am not speaking of new species of Mosquitoes or crocodiles or iguanas. That is Micro evolution as far as I know and that has PROOF.

No…

In Macro evolution I am speaking of a mosquito becoming a bird. No Proof!

 

[Chicago_Bears]

There will never be evidence of a mosquito becoming a bird because a mosquito cannot become a bird. A mosquito becoming a birs would be evidence against the theory of evolution. If this is your understanding evolution, you need to get some basic biology texts.

An organism of one species becoming another species goes against the theory of evolution.

You should also google “microevolution talk origins”

 

[The_Catholic]

There will never be evidence of a mosquito becoming a bird because a mosquito cannot become a bird. A mosquito becoming a birs would be evidence against the theory of evolution. If this is your understanding evolution, you need to get some basic biology texts.

An organism of one species becoming another species goes against the theory of evolution.

You should also google “microevolution talk origins”

What he is trying to ask is that how does a fish become an amphibian? How does an amphibian become a reptile, how does a reptile become a mamal? Etc.

He’s asking if we can observe any of this today, before our very eyes, as we can with “micro.”

 

[Chicago_Bears]

What he is trying to ask is that how does a fish become an amphibian? How does an amphibian become a reptile, how does a reptile become a mamal? Etc.

He’s asking if we can observe any of this today, before our very eyes, as we can with “micro.”

The theory of evolution also does not say that a fish can become an amphibian or any of the other things you posted. If any of thing happened, they would go against evolution.

 

[liberalcatholic]

How are we to understand creation/evolution/free will?
So, which is it?
Perhaps I’m blowing this all out of proportion

Chance or Purpose? The answer to this question may define the character of the one answering it. If all is left to chance, then you may come out ahead, just by having an edge on everyone else. Though if there is a true purpose (a positive one), there is nothing to be gained over one another, hence the 10th commandment, “though shall not covet your neighbor’s house”, thus men must do what is right.

John 3:16, John 10:10

 

[The_Catholic]

The theory of evolution also does not say that a fish can become an amphibian or any of the other things you posted. If any of thing happened, they would go against evolution.

Then please clue me in here because I am completely at a blank. From the evolutionary materials I have read, the early fish evolved into amphibians, the early amphibians evolved into reptiles, and so on, which is macro evolution, so I thought.

scribd.com/doc/11337901/The-Evolution-of-Amphibians

The very first sentence says: “Amphibians are a unique kingdom of animal which evolved from fish”

 

[Chicago_Bears]

Then please clue me in here because I am completely at a blank. From the evolutionary materials I have read, the early fish evolved into amphibians, the early amphibians evolved into reptiles, and so on, which is macro evolution, so I thought.

scribd.com/doc/11337901/The-Evolution-of-Amphibians

Now, you are changing what you wrote before when you wrote about a fish changing into an amphibian.

Evolution is genetic change in populations over time. It is not correct to say that a fish became an amphibian. It would be better to say that certain pollutions of fish built up enough genetic change over generations to point where the later generations of the population were amphibians.

 

[The_Catholic]

Now, you are changing what you wrote before when you wrote about a fish changing into an amphibian.

Evolution is genetic change in populations over time. It is not correct to say that a fish became an amphibian. It would be better to say that certain pollutions of fish built up enough genetic change over generations to point where the later generations of the population were amphibians.

Yes, I understand this, I just worded it poorly, sorry.

I was merely looking at the basics, anotherwords, **amphibians **(creatures which were not around before fish, or the first fish) came from fish. I know that a mere fish cannot simply evolve into an amphibian, it happens through enough genetic change, as you say.

But overall, this is what jackthecatholic was asking. Where can this be observed? Has there been any experiments that have shown this type of evolution, perhaps experiments lasting over 50 years? Bacteria are still bacteria, but amphibians are not “new species of fish,” just as reptiles are not “new species of amphibians.”

The fossil record clearly shows this evolution though, but YEC interpret those transitions as simply other creatures and not intermediete species.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

What he is trying to ask is that how does a fish become an amphibian? How does an amphibian become a reptile, how does a reptile become a mamal? Etc.

He’s asking if we can observe any of this today, before our very eyes, as we can with “micro.”

Thanks. I thought it was obvious what I was syaing.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Yes, I understand this, I just worded it poorly, sorry.

I was merely looking at the basics, anotherwords, **amphibians **(creatures which were not around before fish, or the first fish) came from fish. I know that a mere fish cannot simply evolve into an amphibian, it happens through enough genetic change, as you say.

But overall, this is what jackthecatholic was asking. Where can this be observed? Has there been any experiments that have shown this type of evolution, perhaps experiments lasting over 50 years? Bacteria are still bacteria, but amphibians are not “new species of fish,” just as reptiles are not “new species of amphibians.”

The fossil record clearly shows this evolution though, but YEC interpret those transitions as simply other creatures and not intermediete species.

Again you are right on the point of Macro Evolution and it’s lack of truth because it lacks proof. That is why I equated Macro Evolution with the “world is flat”. They both make sense in our imagination when we do not know any better and neither have/had any proof.

 

[The_Catholic]

Again you are right on the point of Macro Evolution and it’s lack of truth because it lacks proof. That is why I equated Macro Evolution with the “world is flat”. They both make sense in our imagination when we do not know any better and neither have/had any proof.

Hello

I just don’t want you to get the wrong impression about me, I accept evolution and think there is plenty of evidence for it, it poses no problem. There are numerous “macro” evolutionary transitional fossils from one specie sinto another recorded in the earth’s strata, even though YEC claim there is not. Also, scientists have made predictions about where they would most likely find such intermedite fossils and have indeed found them. And the deeper in strata you go the older it dates.

If you’re a young earth believer, hey I respect that even though I disagree.

 

[edwest2]

Kenneth Miller is in error. The Cardinal has it right. What Miller misses is that nature has no goal or purpose. According to Stephen Jay Gould, if evolution could be rewound, things would have turned out differently. Things turned out precisely the way God wanted them to.

That said, however, as Catholics we understand that two real people sinned, causing spiritual and physical damage to Creation.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

In speaking of Macro evolution I am not speaking of new species of Mosquitoes or crocodiles or iguanas. That is Micro evolution as far as I know and that has PROOF.

No. You do not get to redefine words at will. A new species of mosquito is macroevolution. If a new species is involved then it is macroevolution by definition.

Part of the problem is that there are different definitions of “macroevolution” and “microevolution” used on the web. The scientifc definitions are just evolution above or below the level of species. The creationist definitions tend to be “evolution I cannot personally accept” and “evolution I can presonally accept”. Science does not use the creationist definitions.

In Macro evolution I am speaking of a mosquito becoming a bird. No Proof!

If you spend five minutes looking at a blade of grass then you will not see any growth in that blade of grass. You need to look a lot longer if you want to see the grass growing. For the sort of major evolutionary steps you are asking about we need to use fossils to give us a long enough perspective in time.

Consider the evolution of amphibians from early fish:

1. 
   *]Start with a fish with fins.
   *]Next a fish with fins on stumps - like modern or fossil Coelacanths.
   *]Next a fish with fins on stumps with both lungs and gills - like a modern or fossil lungfish.
   *]Next a fish with lungs, gills and fins on stumps with knees/elbows - Eusthenopteron.
   *]Next a fish with lungs, gills and fins on stumps with knees/elbows and wrists/ankles - Tiktaalik.
   *]Next amphibians with lungs, gills and stumps with knees/elbows, wrists/ankles and digits - Acanthostega and others.
   
   It is also worth noting that palaeontologists were able to predict where and when to find the fossil of Tiktaalik since they already had Eusthenopteron and Acanthostega.
   
   Evolution has both living examples and fossils. Creationism has nothing. If God created cattle in creation week (Genesis 1:24) then where are your fossil cattle dating back to the origin of life on earth? Where is your evidence of a genetic bottleneck in all land tetrapod species due to a worldwide flood in the last 10,000 years? You have no evidence. In science the evidence wins.
   
   rossum