Myth of evolution and new drug discovery

[redneck22]

The Vatican and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences do not think so. What is it that you know that they don’t? Would you mind sharing?

Certainly, Catholics are allowed to believe two opposing types of view on origins.

“People usually take three basic positions on the origins of the cosmos, life, and man: (1) special or instantaneous creation, (2) developmental creation or theistic evolution, (3) and atheistic evolution. The first holds that a given thing did not develop, but was instantaneously and directly created by God. The second position holds that a given thing did develop from a previous state or form, but that this process was under God’s guidance. The third position claims that a thing developed due to random forces alone.” catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

So let us delete option 3 because that one is ridiculous. So looking further at what Church history and fathers had to say:-

1. God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
   (Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)
2. Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])
3. Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
4. Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
5. Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)
6. The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ [Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
7. The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.
8. Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
9. Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).
10. After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
11. Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
12. The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).
13. We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
14. All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
15. The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)
16. St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
17. The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)
18. Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught. (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
19. Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.

If we look at what was written not just by inspiration but by **inscription **by the “Finger of God” aka The Holy Spirit (ref CCC700) in Ex20:11 “For in six days Yahweh made the heavens, earth and sea and all that these contain, but on the seventh day he rested…” Ex30:18 “When he had finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God.” This may be for you, the most embarrassing statement in the Bible, that God created in six days and the creation is finished (refer item 15 above)

All that God created was “good”, but since sin entered the world, the creation has been in travail and degenerating (item 12). Death is not natural but is the wage and penalty for sin, and came about after the fall of Adam and Eve. Evolution relies on death, suffering, mutations, survival of the fittest as a part of its history prior to Adam and Eve. This is then attributed to God in theistic evolution. Yet “…in Him there is no darkness”.

Adam was created with the full genetic complement (as were all the animals and plants) for the entire human race we know today. God paraded all the animals in front of Adam to show that he would not find a helpmate in them, God didn’t need to parade a breeding population of 10,000 so that He would avoid a “genetic bottleneck”.

 

[liquidpele]

Certainly, Catholics are allowed to believe two opposing types of view on origins.

“People usually take three basic positions on the origins of the cosmos, life, and man: (1) special or instantaneous creation, (2) developmental creation or theistic evolution, (3) and atheistic evolution. The first holds that a given thing did not develop, but was instantaneously and directly created by God. The second position holds that a given thing did develop from a previous state or form, but that this process was under God’s guidance. The third position claims that a thing developed due to random forces alone.” catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

So let us delete option 3 because that one is ridiculous. .

Why do you think it’s ridiculous?

 

[reggieM]

What structures in particular cannot be, at least in principle, explained by evolutionary processes?

Of course, for the evolutionist – the answer is “none”:

The Story of Evolution

Evolution explains more complexity, and more simplicity. It explains why flight arose in some birds, but was lost in others. With evolution, organs and genomes can become more complicated, or more streamlined. Eyes emerge through evolution, but eyes are also lost by evolution. Evolution makes the cheetah fast but the sloth slow. By evolution, dinosaurs grow to skyscraper size, and hummingbirds grow tiny. With evolution, peacocks grow more flashy and crows more black, giraffes tall and flatworms flat. Evolution explains predator and prey, loner and herder, light and dark, high and low, fast and slow, profligacy and stinginess, terrorism and altruism, religion and atheism, virtue and selfishness, psychosis and reason, extinction and fecundity, war and peace. Evolution explains everything.

Because science has not reached the level of explaining something by evolution, do you think that it necessarily follows that the structure or process in question is IC?

No.

You are logically confused when you try to make a distinction between intelligent and non-intelligent design. Your confusion equals that of extreme Darwinists. This is what I do not like. There is no such thing as non-intelligent design, that is, if we are to use words meaningfully. Your difficulty can be seen by considering the idea of “intelligent design”. The expression is redundant. Design implies intelligence. Hence “intelligent design” is a neoplasm.

Ok, in a prior post you decided that you didn’t want to define what you mean by the word “design”. Now, suddenly, you’re going to leak out snippets of what you might mean by the term in order to pursue an argument. You also said that you didn’t need to prove that design exists and here you’re giving your argument – thus contradicting yourself. You might consider what the word “design” means and how it can be seen as the product of unintelligent forces. Design can mean, pattern, intent, organization or purpose – among many other things.

I can’t make much sense out of this.

It should be fairly easy for you to understand. One group of evolutionists state that IC systems are predicted by evolutionary theory. Another group says that IC systems do not exist. In evolutionary logic, this should be perfectly a perfectly reasonable contradiction which fits nicely into the theory that explains everything.

It’s originator lacks sufficient background in the history of science.

Who do you think originated it?

No scientist of any repute should have anything to do with IC.

It’s fair to say that you’re not a scientist of any repute, so I’ll judge your opinion accordingly.

If, you had read any of my posts, you would know something about my disagreements with Darwinism.

I think I have read your posts and I haven’t seen you provide convincing arguments against Darwinism. But more importantly, you embrace evolutionary theory without recognizing that it contains a philosophical component that cannot be separated from the “science”.

I have numerous disagreements Darwinian ideology, something I distinguish from Darwinian science. Hence, your point is ill-informed and moot.

Again, I haven’t seen any of those numerous disagreements (I’m sorry if I missed them in earlier posts) nor have I seen where you make the fine distinction between the claims of evolutionary theory, Darwinism and “true science”. That might be a helpful first start.

You reflect logic at its worse.

Well, I should get a prize for that at least. With four-hundred trillion arguments taking place on the internet every day, it’s pretty difficult to reflect logic at its worst. I hope someone will save my posts as an example for the world to see – how not to make a logical argument.

If there is anything in nature that is not the result of gradual modification, that does not logically imply the truth of IC as an alternative.

You might review the quote I posted by Peter Kreeft, but then again it might be easier just to say that I “misrepresented him” when he said “if not chance, then design”. But while you’re telling “scientists of any repute” what to do, why not tell Professor Kreeft that he got it totally wrong also? After all, you’re a guy posting on CAF and that has to mean something. Your mistake here is thinking that the argument proposes that ID is the logical necessity once evolutionary processes are falsified. It would be far better to understand the argument first before claiming it has been annihilated.

As I explained before, unlike metaphysical proposals, ID is based on probabilities. In other words, it’s based on the same standard that the evolutionary claims that you accept so readily are. If you applied the same demand for logical consistency to evolutionary theory, you would have to dismiss the entire field. Just because two fossils look alike does not imply descent. But evolutionists make the claim because for them, “its the best, most reasonable explanation”.

The same is true with ID. The idea that a guiding intelligence was involved in the shaping and development of nature is an alternative to consider. If it can be shown that blind, unintelligent natural laws cannot produce all of the diversity found in nature, and we know that things in nature “appear to be designed by intelligence”, then we can infer that there was some intelligence involved in the development of nature.

The logic in that is solid because nowhere does it state that “if evolution can’t do it, then intelligence is the only possible cause”. It merely proposes intelligence as a cause – and then evaluates to see if there is a competing alternative.

 

[reggieM]

Man’s body has a pre-history in the natural evolutionary processes in nature. However, since physical processes cannot generate non-physical substances, the spiritual soul must come into existence through a direct act of creation, and not through any secondary causes in nature.

There are a couple of problems here. First, a body cannot be considered “man’s body” if it does not possess an immortal soul. An animal’s body is not a man’s body.

Additionally, the idea that the human soul is simply an add-on to some animal makes it appear as if the soul does not have a profound, irreversible, defining, irreducible and compositional (the soul shapes the body) effect on creatures.

A man cannot gradually turn into an animal because the human soul is not the product of evolutionary gradualism. In the same way, as you correctly state, an animal cannot turn into a human being through evolutionary gradualism. The soul is created ex nihilo – and where the soul is, there also is a human person.

This refutes evolutionary theory which claims to explain the origin of human beings as the gradual modification of animals to human.

 

[tjm190]

There are a couple of problems here. First, a body cannot be considered “man’s body” if it does not possess an immortal soul. An animal’s body is not a man’s body.

Additionally, the idea that the human soul is simply an add-on to some animal makes it appear as if the soul does not have a profound, irreversible, defining, irreducible and compositional (the soul shapes the body) effect on creatures.

A man cannot gradually turn into an animal because the human soul is not the product of evolutionary gradualism. In the same way, as you correctly state, an animal cannot turn into a human being through evolutionary gradualism. The soul is created ex nihilo – and where the soul is, there also is a human person.

This refutes evolutionary theory which claims to explain the origin of human beings as the gradual modification of animals to human.

And if the soul was even remotely within the realm of science, you might have a case.

 

[redneck22]

Why do you think it’s ridiculous?

We have no choice but to deposit our faith in some form of origin belief. The belief in where we came from is foundational to our belief in where we are ultimately going and in general how we view life around us.

I just find that atheistic evolution has failed on many fronts, failed to give a viable “origin” of biological evolution in abiogenesis and as a result needs to rely on chance-of-the-gaps, time-of-the-gaps, atheism-of-the-gaps etc logical fallacies. Atheistic biological evolution relies on life already existing “we are here aren’t we, we must have evolved”.

 

[liquidpele]

We have no choice but to deposit our faith in some form of origin belief. The belief in where we came from is foundational to our belief in where we are ultimately going and in general how we view life around us.

I just find that atheistic evolution has failed on many fronts, failed to give a viable “origin” of biological evolution in abiogenesis and as a result needs to rely on chance-of-the-gaps, time-of-the-gaps, atheism-of-the-gaps etc logical fallacies. Atheistic biological evolution relies on life already existing “we are here aren’t we, we must have evolved”.

Evolution doesn’t *make *any claims about origin though. Saying the fact that it doesn’t make claims about things it doesn’t try to explain is somehow a fault is silly.

 

[redneck22]

Evolution doesn’t *make *any claims about origin though. Saying the fact that it doesn’t make claims about things it doesn’t try to explain is somehow a fault is silly.

Maybe I wasn’t clear enough, the original statement you were refering to was-

"“People usually take three basic positions on the origins of the cosmos, life, and man: (1) special or instantaneous creation, (2) developmental creation or theistic evolution, (3) and atheistic evolution"

Evolution, being such a huge equivocation, doesn’t just refer to biological evolution. There is cosmological, stellar, planetary, chemical, organic, biological and human evolution. Item (3) above refers to all 7 forms of evolution, as far as the text is concerned. What claims does atheistic evolution make on origins?

 

[buffalo]

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. You have not quoted any text, or indicated who you think has mistaken exactly what, or why you think there is a misinterpretation of whatever it is that you have made no reference to, and so on.

The matter I referred to is in the evolution section of this book: Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA edited by William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse. Have you even read this book? Arbitrarily assuming you might have read this book, is there something specific in it you wanted to discuss?

Go on over to Evolution in the Classroom thread and look over the last couple of days.

 

[buffalo]

No – just an academic community of scientifically and theologically trained people, and an educated parish.

That wording speaks volumes.

 

[reggieM]

The total I’m looking for is a total in which all things are in the same terms, if you will. When I’m solving an equation for x, the solution does me no good if part of it is still in terms of x. In ID, the question is still part of the solution, according to every explanation I’ve ever read. Does this make sense?

Yes, that makes sense. I think you’re saying that what you hope to have “add up” equals a formula or explanation that captures the nature of reality and avoids confusions or contradictions. Many do try to find this, and they conclude that materialistic-monism is the most reasonable single answer that is rational and logical.

But here there is an expectation that a single solution should exist and that human beings (who are a part of the universe and not the source of it) should be able to fully understand it. How can a human fully understand the mind of the Creator? One answer to this is to deny that there is a creator – but the problem remains. Why should inert matter gain intelligence and then claim to understand the source of matter?

These are contradictions in many ways and when considered more carefully,the logic breaks down. What if it is true that paradox is a fundamental part of nature itself? That does not mean that reason is useless, but only that it is limited. Logic can provide a glimpse of meaning, but it cannot solve logical paradoxes.

So, the first question is why we should assume that we can know with fullness. If we can’t, then any solution will contain part of x as we seek to solve for x. We cannot explain ourselves – so we have x trying to solve for x.

My “problem” is that I don’t believe in an immortal soul, and I won’t until I see some type of evidence (not necessarily empirical mind you) to the contrary.

I will suggest that you want more than merely to “see evidence” but that you want to be convinced. You could spend a great many years studying Catholic mysticism, for example. You could pursue the time-honored paths for finding God (and they are not restricted to biological lab tests). In other words, if a reputable source told you that there was a massive treasure buried in your backyard – you would not say that you don’t believe it until someone shows you evidence. You would trust the source and start digging and not stop until the entire yard had been uncovered. Why? Because you’d have an intense desire for the treasure. Jesus called it “a pearl of great price”. I’m not in any way trying to criticize you personally here, but just to gently nudge you towards the effort that it takes to find God. It requires some stretching beyond one’s comfort zone (perhaps a comfort zone of science or empiricism).

I fully accept that things like human consciousness are a great mystery. This is something I marvel at every day of my life, and science is far from an answer.

This is good. The fact that you marvel at this means that you instinctively know that consciousness is not like a pile of rocks. Unintelligent nature creates piles of rocks. It is also claimed to have created consciousness. But the reason we marvel is because nature does not show the power of randomly creating a precisely orchestrated network of 100 billion neurons each connected to as many as a thousand other neurons which dwarfs in sophistication any of the products of the combined genius of the human race.

We know instinctively that this simply doesn’t fit the story. So, to marvel at that is a correct response to the reality.

This is why I strongly believe that God is not a prerequisite for happiness. I think happiness in life is all about being able to look at things in wonder.

Ok, that sounds fine, but it’s important to look at all of reality. Two categories that deserve consideration are “sin” and “death”.

Like I said before, it seems as if God arbitrarily chose to use his “powers” when creating some things, and let nature (which I realize that he allegedly created) sort out the rest. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to let nature explain everything, or make everything so that nature could not explain it? There would certainly be more believers, at least in the latter case.

That is a reasonable question. It’s oriented to a goal – achieving more believers in this case. But couldn’t God just simply force everyone to believe by making non-belief impossible? But the way God did it is to create light and darkness working together. There are only glimpses, and there are struggles. Would life be better if there were no mysteries? I think you answered this by saying that your happiness is actually based on the mysteries and wonder you encounter. That is true – beauty comes from mystery and the unknown contributes to that.

I think that entertainment is all about doing things which aren’t natural. The filmmaker tries to put you in an unnatural state of excitement. Excitement is based around the idea that exciting things are unnatural. For a further example, see magic tricks. Sleeping may be a good thing to do, but staying awake is no worse for you (within reason of course).

Ok, I don’t follow this but it was just an analogy that I thought would resonate with you so it’s not worth pursuing. You’re probably right to compare movies with magic tricks, for the most part. But art is supposed to build up the quality of human beings and to be something more than mere entertainment. If movies just manipulate emotions (and probably most do) for no other purpose than physical stimulation, then I would agree.

 

[liquidpele]

Maybe I wasn’t clear enough, the original statement you were refering to was-

““People usually take three basic positions on the origins of the cosmos, life, and man: (1) special or instantaneous creation, (2) developmental creation or theistic evolution, (3) and atheistic evolution”

Okay, but now we’re mis-using words so I’m all confused.

 

[itinerant1]

Go on over to Evolution in the Classroom thread and look over the last couple of days.

You quoted my post and then said something vague. In response to my request for clarification you send me to another thread? No thanks. I’ll have to pass on the offer. And I’ll just ignore your post, the one in question if you can’t explain yourself in this thread.

 

[buffalo]

You quoted my post and then said something vague. In response to my request for clarification you send me to another thread? No thanks. I’ll have to pass on the offer. And I’ll just ignore your post, the one in question if you can’t explain yourself in this thread.

Fine by me…

 

[itinerant1]

There are a couple of problems here. First, a body cannot be considered “man’s body” if it does not possess an immortal soul. An animal’s body is not a man’s body.

Agreed. Glad you got that part right.

Additionally, the idea that the human soul is simply an add-on to some animal makes it appear as if the soul does not have a profound, irreversible, defining, irreducible and compositional (the soul shapes the body) effect on creatures.

Right. This notion of the soul is garbled. So, you got this right, too.

A man cannot gradually turn into an animal because the human soul is not the product of evolutionary gradualism. In the same way, as you correctly state, an animal cannot turn into a human being through evolutionary gradualism. The soul is created ex nihilo – and where the soul is, there also is a human person.

More or less correct. You are seeing something of the difference between man and animals. Good. However, I did not make the following statement as you claim:“an animal cannot turn into a human being through evolutionary gradualism.” That statement is ambiguous, i.e. it is capable of various diverse interpretations.

This refutes evolutionary theory which claims to explain the origin of human beings as the gradual modification of animals to human.

There is no refutation here. Your argument fails because a sound theory of theistic evolution does not “claim to explain the origin of human beings as the gradual modification of animals to human.” That is, hominization is not the result of biological processes alone. Hence, the refutation of your “refutation” is complete.

 

[itinerant1]

Certainly, Catholics are allowed to believe two opposing types of view on origins.

“People usually take three basic positions on the origins of the cosmos, life, and man: (1) special or instantaneous creation, (2) developmental creation or theistic evolution, (3) and atheistic evolution. The first holds that a given thing did not develop, but was instantaneously and directly created by God. The second position holds that a given thing did develop from a previous state or form, but that this process was under God’s guidance. The third position claims that a thing developed due to random forces alone.” catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

So let us delete option 3 because that one is ridiculous. So looking further at what Church history and fathers had to say:-

1. God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
   (Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)
2. Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])
3. Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
4. Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
5. Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)
6. The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ [Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
7. The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.
8. Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
9. Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).
10. After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
11. Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
12. The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).
13. We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
14. All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
15. The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)
16. St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
17. The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)
18. Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught. (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
19. Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.

If we look at what was written not just by inspiration but by **inscription **by the “Finger of God” aka The Holy Spirit (ref CCC700) in Ex20:11 “For in six days Yahweh made the heavens, earth and sea and all that these contain, but on the seventh day he rested…” Ex30:18 “When he had finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God.” This may be for you, the most embarrassing statement in the Bible, that God created in six days and the creation is finished (refer item 15 above)

All that God created was “good”, but since sin entered the world, the creation has been in travail and degenerating (item 12). Death is not natural but is the wage and penalty for sin, and came about after the fall of Adam and Eve. Evolution relies on death, suffering, mutations, survival of the fittest as a part of its history prior to Adam and Eve. This is then attributed to God in theistic evolution. Yet “…in Him there is no darkness”.

Adam was created with the full genetic complement (as were all the animals and plants) for the entire human race we know today. God paraded all the animals in front of Adam to show that he would not find a helpmate in them, God didn’t need to parade a breeding population of 10,000 so that He would avoid a “genetic bottleneck”.

There are too many things here to address at once. So, your post was not a good idea. For instance, considering item #14, the Church Fathers were NOT unanimous in their interpretations of Genesis 1. If you had done much reading of the Church Fathers you would realize this.

St. Augustine, for instance, believed that Creation occurred all at once, and that life forms evolved or emerged over time, as circumstances permitted. This later emergence of various species was possible because God originally created their rationes seminales in matter. St. Gregory of Nyssa and his school also taught creatio in rationis seminales.

St. Thomas Aquinas said “A direct creation in six days is favored by a superficial reading of Scripture.”

If you want to talk about Biblical exegesis and the Church Fathers, I suggest you learn something about them first. Otherwise, your pontificating on the matter is a waste of everyone’s time.

 

[itinerant1]

Ok, in a prior post you decided that you didn’t want to define what you mean by the word “design”. Now, suddenly, you’re going to leak out snippets of what you might mean by the term in order to pursue an argument. You also said that you didn’t need to prove that design exists and here you’re giving your argument – thus contradicting yourself. You might consider what the word “design” means and how it can be seen as the product of unintelligent forces. Design can mean, pattern, intent, organization or purpose – among many other things.

What is your point? I said design at its fundamental level is properly explained in terms of formal, material, efficient, and final causes.

This is not the level of being science deals with in its investigation of nature. Science deals with quantities, relations, and so on of phenomenal reality. You have bypassed all of this and reverted back to your original assertions without directly addressing what is going on here.

It should be fairly easy for you to understand. One group of evolutionists state that IC systems are predicted by evolutionary theory. Another group says that IC systems do not exist. In evolutionary logic, this should be perfectly a perfectly reasonable contradiction which fits nicely into the theory that explains everything.

I would prefer to deal with quotes, sources, and references rather than just your re-wording and characterization of things.

I think I have read your posts and I haven’t seen you provide convincing arguments against Darwinism. But more importantly, you embrace evolutionary theory without recognizing that it contains a philosophical component that cannot be separated from the “science”.

Again, I haven’t seen any of those numerous disagreements (I’m sorry if I missed them in earlier posts) nor have I seen where you make the fine distinction between the claims of evolutionary theory, Darwinism and “true science”. That might be a helpful first start.

Okay, you have missed a lot. No problem there. However, the current problem is that you are missing the distinctions I am making now about design and causality, so how are you going to understand what I have to say about Darwinian ideology?

Here is a specific point you made, which you can address further: What are philosophical components that cannot be separated from the “science”? Explain your statement as clearly as you are able.

Well, I should get a prize for that at least. With four-hundred trillion arguments taking place on the internet every day, it’s pretty difficult to reflect logic at its worst. I hope someone will save my posts as an example for the world to see – how not to make a logical argument.

Pardon my hyperbole. I will restate matters: Your logic leaves much to be desired. How’s that?

You might review the quote I posted by Peter Kreeft, but then again it might be easier just to say that I “misrepresented him” when he said “if not chance, then design”. But while you’re telling “scientists of any repute” what to do, why not tell Professor Kreeft that he got it totally wrong also? After all, you’re a guy posting on CAF and that has to mean something. Your mistake here is thinking that the argument proposes that ID is the logical necessity once evolutionary processes are falsified. It would be far better to understand the argument first before claiming it has been annihilated.

As I explained before, unlike metaphysical proposals, ID is based on probabilities. In other words, it’s based on the same standard that the evolutionary claims that you accept so readily are. If you applied the same demand for logical consistency to evolutionary theory, you would have to dismiss the entire field. Just because two fossils look alike does not imply descent. But evolutionists make the claim because for them, “its the best, most reasonable explanation”.

The same is true with ID. The idea that a guiding intelligence was involved in the shaping and development of nature is an alternative to consider. If it can be shown that blind, unintelligent natural laws cannot produce all of the diversity found in nature, and we know that things in nature “appear to be designed by intelligence”, then we can infer that there was some intelligence involved in the development of nature.

The logic in that is solid because nowhere does it state that “if evolution can’t do it, then intelligence is the only possible cause”. It merely proposes intelligence as a cause – and then evaluates to see if there is a competing alternative.

I think you are misreading Kreeft.

Also, I don’t accept the distinction between evolution as a cause and intelligence as a cause, as if the two can be separate in reality, or that one exists but not the other.

 

[reggieM]

However, the current problem is that you are missing the distinctions I am making now about design and causality, so how are you going to understand what I have to say about Darwinian ideology?

That is a valid point and I accept it. I will follow the discussions you have with others on CAF and perhaps get a better insight on your views.

Pardon my hyperbole. I will restate matters: Your logic leaves much to be desired. How’s that?

That is better and I appreciate the re-statement.

I think you are misreading Kreeft.

Let’s just agree to disagree - ok?

Also, I don’t accept the distinction between evolution as a cause and intelligence as a cause, as if the two can be separate in reality, or that one exists but not the other.

Well, I see a distinction between what natural laws produce, what human intelligence produces and the various levels of what God reveals to mankind of His own intelligence, power, wisdom, beauty, plan, purpose and love.

God’s intelligence can create things contingently or directly. That’s why we say that the soul is created directly by God. At the same time, God causes the crops to grow by providing rain – and rain occurs naturally (contingently) as God’s power acts through nature. This is why the Church teaches us to pray for good seasons for growing and pray for our daily bread.

We pray because nature alone is not sufficient for our needs. If it was, then there would be no reason to pray for our daily bread. Additionally, we are called to rise above nature. That is why we have immortal souls. We will not die with nature, unless we live for nature. St. Paul teaches this clearly. If we don’t rise above nature – and live the supernatural life, then there is no resurrection for us.

So, St. Paul makes it clear that nature is something distinct from grace. But nature is shaped by grace and reflects grace. Nature is a created thing. All creation groans since the commission of sin. Jesus Christ redeemed nature, and brought the resurrection to a world that did not have the benefit of supernatural power. Grace transforms nature – in the Eucharist especially.

So, there’s a major distinction between grace and nature. In the same way, there’s a major distinction between human intelligence and inert matter. And there is a major difference between inert matter and life itself.

Now the problem is “what do you mean by evolution”? Or “what do you mean by the science of evolution”?

The findings of evolutionary science require interpretation of some kind. Interpretation on a small scale, and interpretation on the grander scale of “what this all means about the development of life and nature”.

Nature does not interpret itself. Even scientific experiements do not interpret themselves. They always require a human being to interpret the results and explain what they mean.

The first problem with evolutionary theory, as I see it, is that it is not one thing. It is, on the contrary, a collection of ideas which change and fluctuate continually.

Who speaks officially for what evolutionary theory really is? Who has the “true definition” of what evolution is?

I can show you a list of quotes from evolutionary biology textbooks for high school students which all give statements defining evolution. They’ll say “evolution is … [whatever]”. So, they make statements about what evolution actually is.

Are those statements correct? Are they science? Or are the definitions themselves products of philosophy?

How would you know what the correct defintion of evolution really is? Would you take the scientific consensus on that, or would you accept a different view? Does your belief in God’s creation have anything to do with evolution of life at all? If not, how do you know? Is your view of evolution indistinguishable from that of atheistic evolution?

 

[redneck22]

The first problem with evolutionary theory, as I see it, is that it is not one thing. It is, on the contrary, a collection of ideas which change and fluctuate continually.

Who speaks officially for what evolutionary theory really is? Who has the “true definition” of what evolution is?

I can show you a list of quotes from evolutionary biology textbooks for high school students which all give statements defining evolution. They’ll say “evolution is … [whatever]”. So, they make statements about what evolution actually is.

Are those statements correct? Are they science? Or are the definitions themselves products of philosophy?

How would you know what the correct defintion of evolution really is? Would you take the scientific consensus on that, or would you accept a different view? Does your belief in God’s creation have anything to do with evolution of life at all? If not, how do you know? Is your view of evolution indistinguishable from that of atheistic evolution?

That’s a good point

 

[itinerant1]

Well, I see a distinction between what natural laws produce, what human intelligence produces and the various levels of what God reveals to mankind of His own intelligence, power, wisdom, beauty, plan, purpose and love.

God’s intelligence can create things contingently or directly. That’s why we say that the soul is created directly by God. At the same time, God causes the crops to grow by providing rain – and rain occurs naturally (contingently) as God’s power acts through nature. This is why the Church teaches us to pray for good seasons for growing and pray for our daily bread.

We pray because nature alone is not sufficient for our needs. If it was, then there would be no reason to pray for our daily bread. Additionally, we are called to rise above nature. That is why we have immortal souls. We will not die with nature, unless we live for nature. St. Paul teaches this clearly. If we don’t rise above nature – and live the supernatural life, then there is no resurrection for us.

So, St. Paul makes it clear that nature is something distinct from grace. But nature is shaped by grace and reflects grace. Nature is a created thing. All creation groans since the commission of sin. Jesus Christ redeemed nature, and brought the resurrection to a world that did not have the benefit of supernatural power. Grace transforms nature – in the Eucharist especially.

So, there’s a major distinction between grace and nature. In the same way, there’s a major distinction between human intelligence and inert matter. And there is a major difference between inert matter and life itself.

All of this does not seem to have much to do with my original point about evolution and intelligence as a cause. I could have said Intelligence as a cause. On a meta-scientific level, evolution reflects intelligence and design and pertains to such things as the algorithms of natural selection; an existing environment that can be adapted to; that organisms strive to survive rather than just lay flat against the environment, and so on.

Now the problem is “what do you mean by evolution”? Or “what do you mean by the science of evolution”?

The findings of evolutionary science require interpretation of some kind. Interpretation on a small scale, and interpretation on the grander scale of “what this all means about the development of life and nature”.

Nature does not interpret itself. Even scientific experiements do not interpret themselves. They always require a human being to interpret the results and explain what they mean.

The first problem with evolutionary theory, as I see it, is that it is not one thing. It is, on the contrary, a collection of ideas which change and fluctuate continually.

Who speaks officially for what evolutionary theory really is? Who has the “true definition” of what evolution is?

I can show you a list of quotes from evolutionary biology textbooks for high school students which all give statements defining evolution. They’ll say “evolution is … [whatever]”. So, they make statements about what evolution actually is.

Are those statements correct? Are they science? Or are the definitions themselves products of philosophy?

How would you know what the correct defintion of evolution really is? Would you take the scientific consensus on that, or would you accept a different view? Does your belief in God’s creation have anything to do with evolution of life at all? If not, how do you know? Is your view of evolution indistinguishable from that of atheistic evolution?

You originally stated “But more importantly, you embrace evolutionary theory without recognizing that it contains a philosophical component that cannot be separated from the “science””. When I ask for examples to illustrate what you mean, you just throw out more questions and statements without being accountable for what you originally stated. One more time: What is the philosophical component you claim cannot be separated from the science?