S
StAnastasia
Guest
My Catholicism is not of the superstitious brand.
- Status
I
itinerant1
Guest
The distinction is well-found. Almost every philosopher in the history of western civilization has considered man to be a rational animal. Where philosophers differ is how they account for rationality, and what is its nature. In modern times, since the advance of various sciences, the question of man’s nature, that age-old question, has become a mixed question, that is, the question involves now for its answer both scientific and philosophic data.
The radical distinction between brute animal and rational animal is involved in fundamental questions such as “What is man?”, “How shall man’s nature be defined?” “What is the essence of humanity?” Existentialists emphasize another direction by asking “Who is man?”
I have never run across anyone who has considered the distinction imaginary. Certainly Darwin, as his early Notebooks reveal, considered it a distinction of great concern. To say that “humans and animals sprout as branches on the same evolutionary bush” does not erase the distinction or settle the issues involved. As Julian Huxley says, “man…is in many respects unique among animals.”
The questions involving this uniqueness of which Huxley speaks are concerned with the nature of the difference between man and brute animals. Specifically, does the mind of man differ from the mind anthropoid apes and higher animals in degree only, or is it a difference in kind, one that is superficial or is it radical. The Desecent is Darwin’s attempt to give his answer to questions involved in the distinction between brute and non-brute animals.
Again, I do not know anyone who maintains that this most hotly debated of topics throughout the centuries, from the time of ancient Greece to the present, is based on a distinction that is imaginary.
B
buffalo
Guest
I do not know why I waste my time with you. I think it is because you are amusing.
It is clear to anyone who has followed your posts for any length of time that you espouse heresy and consistently promote scientism. Why do you even call yourself Catholic believing is so little of it.
As usual you avoid the deep question and come up with these superficial replies.
As Catholics we need to reference Revelation to illuminate our thinking.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Belief in a non-physical immortal soul has nothing whatsoever to do with superstition. Even Socrates believed in the soul. And philosophers subsequent to Socrates have provided rational demonstrations of the soul’s nature and immortality. Reason alone, proves the soul’s existence. It is disbelief in the soul that has all of the problems, logical, epistemological, ontological, and so on, when it comes to explaining the facts of human experience.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Agreed. I think it is a discussion stopper when someone calls certain beliefs “superstitious.”
It’s a disrespectful ad hominem, and fails to reasonable address the argument.
The real St. Anastasia adhered to Revelation and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
The sentiment is quite mutual.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
OK then, offer convincing proof that all tissue containing the DNA of Homo sapiens contains an immortal soul, and that only such tissue contains an immortal soul. See if you can construct a coherent argument.
I
itinerant1
Guest
I don’t think primitive cells could hold the quantity of information implied by your hypothesis. And even supposing they could, hypothetically, over millions of generations much of the unused information (thus amounting to superfluous information for the individual carrier) would be lost.
If living forms simpler than cells preceded the existence of cells, then you are multiplying miracles unnecessarily, because I assume you are going to say life itself began miraculously and not by strictly natural processes God has ordained.
I must opt for a natural, evolutionary explanation of DNA, though not in any extreme Darwinian sense. I resist the idea of God tinkering with his creation via miracles. Matter is very specific. This specificity, derived from God’s efficient causality, allows matter to accomplish God’s plans for creation. Or, more simply put, we need not posit anything in addition to matter, or invoke miraculous interventions to explain creation of new biological types. Creation in the beginning is a continuous act. It is continuous like the music of a flute player that continues as long as the flutist plays the instrument.
B
buffalo
Guest
Do you believe we have immortal souls?
I
itinerant1
Guest
DNA does not contain the spiritual soul at all. Matter cannot generate non-physical reality. Also, strictly speaking, matter does not contain the soul. The soul contains the body.
To construct a coherent question or argument, one must begin with a proper understanding and definition of non-physical being.
B
buffalo
Guest
New findings show that DNA has not changed all that much.
Evolution: hacking back the tree of life (can anyone say DEVOLUTION?)
I
itinerant1
Guest
Okay, I’ll check out that link when I have more time later today and get back on the issue. In the meantime, if you want, you could post some of the key ideas from that site, and see if anyone want to challenge any of them.
L
liquidpele
Guest
The whole thing is summed up by this:
The second part there, where some people are suggesting that the loss of features is a part of evolution. Allow me to say… DUH. Blind lizards in caves were found decades ago, this devolution was well known a long time ago.
As for things being “more advanced” at the genetic level very early on… well… since we don’t have any DNA from very early animals, I’d be very interested to know how they came to that conclusion. Even if true, it simply means that they started off more complex that previously believed meaning they were likely older or from a more diversified genetic pool than previously thought.
Point being, this is some very non-exciting claims with little convincing evidence that creationists are just jumping all over.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Hold on, buffalo, and I’ll get back to you, maybe tomorrow. This is a complex question, requiring a complex answer. I’m on deadline with a journal article on “intelligent design,” and the editor is waiting for me to email it.
StAnastasia
I
itinerant1
Guest
You just saved me the trouble of ready that article.
I
itinerant1
Guest
His question is actually quite simple, requiring an equally simple answer . Nonetheless, I will be interested in seeing what you think must be a complex answer.
H
hecd2
Guest
First of all you would have to define what you mean by “complexity” in order for that statement to signify anything at all, and that would be a necessary pre-amble to deciding whether the statement is true or not. Having said that, I am not aware of any sensible definition of increasing complexity in organisms that cannot in principle be explained by evolutionary processes. Perhaps you would like to define what you mean by complexity and we will explore whether there are ways that the evolutionary process has been shown to be capable of increasing that complexity.
Similarly, I have never yet met a critic of evolution who is able to satisfy the conditions necessary to make this point telling and I doubt that you will be the first. This is what you have to do in order to demonstrate that your blank assertion is more than just a blank assertion:
*]You have to define, rigorously and unambiguously, what you mean by information that is specific and complex (including whether it refers to the quantity of information in the genome of an organism, in an actively interbreeding population, in a species or in a habitat).
*]You have to show how to unambiguously quantify it - by bits, or gene count, or the total length of the genome, or the length of the conserved portion of the genome, or the protein coding length of the genome, or the number of alleles in a population or a species - so that you can tell whether the quantity of whatever you have defined as information in step 1) is more, less or the same from generation to generation
*]You have to demonstrate that macro-evolution necessarily requires an increase over time in whatever you have defined as information in step 1) according to the method of quantification in step 2)
*]You must then show that it is impossible for this increase in whatever you have defined as information to occur naturally by well known processes such as point mutations, insertions, deletions, inversions, translocations, duplications and so on.
Almost all creationists fall at the first hurdle. See if you can do better.
Yes
Alec
evolutionpages.com/pederpes%20finneyae.htm
B
buffalo
Guest
I have got an idea. Why not vette your submissions here. It can only strengthen your paper. I would be happy to do my part for peer review.
B
buffalo
Guest
While liquid is right in some respects about the article it does set the framework for supporting links that either were already posted or will be. Itinerant I suggest you do some reading for yourself. I think it will be worth it.You just saved me the trouble of ready that article.
So now we do have agreement that devolution does occur. It is a good starting point.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Unfortunately, I am overwhelmed with reading right now. I have several books going simultaneously, and I just started another one by Francisco Ayala that I find interesting. And I can hardly wait to read another book I picked up at the library about the fossil record. So, when someone post links to articles I’m not always inclined to jump on the link. I would prefer if the poster summarized the main points or gave a brief synopsis of an article and provided the link for a reference. Such an approach better suits my limited abilities.
- Status