National Academies book on evolution

[reggieM]

Gould: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’.

Barbarian: I’d still like to see an incompletely formed organism in the fossil record. Apparently, no one knows of one.

Can anyone detect the difference in Barbarian’s question and what Gould stated?

The fact that Barbarian has taken this approach is “evidence” as I see it. I’ll ask myself how much confidence can a person have in evolutionary theory when this kind of thing happens (as it does frequently).

 

[The_Barbarian]

Gould: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’.

Barbarian: I’d still like to see an incompletely formed organism in the fossil record. Apparently, no one knows of one.

Can anyone detect the difference in Barbarian’s question and what Gould stated?

Yes. Barbarian is asking those who characterize Gould’s assertion as claiming there are no transitionals (Gould bluntly says that there are, elsewhere) to show him any fossil that is not “completely formed.” All transitionals are “fully formed.”
Each species is a complete entity unto itself, even when it is transitional to something else.

The fact that Barbarian has taken this approach is “evidence” as I see it.

Yes, I’m quite willing to acknowledge that I agree with Gould on a number of things. This is just one of them.

I’ll ask myself how much confidence can a person have in evolutionary theory when this kind of thing happens (as it does frequently).

I’m thinking you possibly forgot to include some text in here somehow. You’re making no sense, Reggie.

 

[The_Barbarian]

There have been many reversals in this theory.

Don’t know of a “reversal.” Take Darwin’s five assertions and tell us which of these were “reversed.”

But they may also be just as incorrect as the ideas that were championed not long ago.

Could be. But seems rather unlikely. The process of science is going from ideas that are wrong to those that are less wrong. So far, theories have been better and better at explaining nature.

As the item I posted said, Gould refuted virtually every major component of evolutionary theory at one point in his writings.

Let’s see… Darwin’s theory:

1. 
   *]More are born than can live
   *]Every organism is slightly different than its parents
   *]Some of these differences increase the chances of living long enough to reproduce
   *]Such variations tend to increase in populations
   *]Accumulated changes account for the diversity of life.
   
   Which of these major components of Darwin’s theory did Gould refute? (checkable sources would be appropriate)
   

   But I think we saw this in other areas. Ken Miller’s textbook gave blatantly erroneous information on a very serious matter (the origin of life and the universe as “blind” with the definite statement that God was not involved).

   It was, as Miller asserted, a theological statment, not a scientific one, and he did eventually convince his co-author to drop it, and the publisher to omit it from later editions.
   

   Or we could look at someone like Jacques Monod:

   “Chance alone is at the source of all novelty, all creation in the biosphere,…”

   Variation is by random mutation. That’s not a problem for God, according to Pope Benedict. But of course, the pope thinks God is omnipotent.
   

   “Pure chance, only chance, absolute but blind liberty
   is at the root of the prodigious edifice that is evolution…”
   

   • Jacques Monod, “Chance and Necessity” (1970)

   This puts him at odds with Darwin, who showed that natural selection is the antithesis of chance.
   

   Now we hear that Monod’s belief is totally wrong and evolution is not based on chance. But Monod’s theory was taught for years as the basis of evolution.

   Not in any textbook I ever saw, other than “Of Pandas and People”, but then it had a lot of strange misrepresentations of evolutionary theory.
   

   Richard Dawkins then says that evolution cannot be chance, and he proves that by observing the universe and life and saying that it looks so obviously designed, that chance could not have possibly created it. Therefore (instead of proposing an intelligent creator) he says that “evolution is not due to chance alone”.

   So Darwin showed. Are you surprised?
   
   So yes, that might be a refinement, but it could also be totally wrong, just as Monod was “wrong” about the very fundamentals of evolution.
   

   I’ve recently heard the term “Big Front Loaders” (BFL’s) as a means of describing those who believe that God created the evolutionary process at the beginning so that it would all work out as it has done now.

   Physics indicates that it’s much more elegant than that. God created nature with a very simple foundation, that works out the way He intends. In fact, He remains intimately involved with every aspect of it, and it is the way He does things in our world. That it is understandable and predictable is no more suprising than it is surprising that He is trustworthy and good in other things.
   

   Again, it may be correct, but in all of our “discussions” here I haven’t seen anyone explain what is meant in the BFL position, except that natural laws alone create all things and God is not involved (except that He front loaded everything).

   I’m looking back and can’t find anyone who said anything like that.
   Is this another of those “Reggie moments?”

 

[wildleafblower]

Variation is by random mutation. That’s not a problem for God, according to Pope Benedict. But of course, the pope thinks God is omnipotent.

Hi Barbarian, I’m not ReggieM but want to reply regarding your comment above and the following one below. First off, you really need to read the Compendium OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH Jesus ‘illuminates the mystery’ of omnipotent You are taking a creationist position by your above statement and making God omnipresent which isn’t the teaching of the Church.

Physics indicates that it’s much more elegant than that. God created nature with a very simple foundation, that works out the way He intends. In fact, He remains intimately involved with every aspect of it, and it is the way He does things in our world. That it is understandable and predictable is no more suprising than it is surprising that He is trustworthy and good in other things.

You have again taken a creationist’s position by making God omnipresent which isn’t the teaching of the Church. Truthfully Barbarian, you are taking a gnostic view of God which is against the teachings of the Chruch (VATICAN:Holy See).

 

[drpmjhess]

Hi Barbarian…You have again taken a creationist’s position by making God omnipresent which isn’t the teaching of the Church. Truthfully Barbarian, you are taking a gnostic view of God which is against the teachings of the Chruch (VATICAN:Holy See).

Wildleafblower, the Psalmist would disagree with you, making the poetic case for God’s omnipresence:

“Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me,” even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you.” [Psalm 139:7-12]

Petrus

 

[ricmat]

Wildleafblower, the Psalmist would disagree with you, making the poetic case for God’s omnipresence:

“Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me,” even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you.” [Psalm 139:7-12]

Petrus

This has nothing to do with the omnipresence debate, but your mention of the Psalmist got me to thinking. It looks to me like the Psalmist wants us to find God in nature, especially his “designs”. From Christian Prayer, only looking at week 2 (this past week), and even then, this isn’t an exhaustive list:

page 789, psalm prayer: “Father, creator and ruler of heaven and earth, you made man in your likeness to subdue the earth and master it, and to recognize the work of your hands in created beauty.”

page 796, psalm 19A: “The heavens proclaim the glory of God, and the firmament shows forth the work of his hands.”

page 796, psalm prayer: “Illumine our eyes that we may discern your glory in the many works of your hand.”

page 846, psalm 92: “O Lord, how great are your works! How deep are your designs. The foolish man cannot know this and the fool cannot understand.”

page 848, psalm 8: “When I see the heavens, the work of your hands, the moon and the stars which you arranged, what is man that you should keep him in mind, mortal man that you should care for him.”

and then there’s psalm 111: “Majestic and glorious is your work, your wise design endures forever.” - from the NAB.

There are some here who believe that science should be totally separated from anything to do with God. Rather, it can help us stand more in awe of God, rather than used to deny him.

 

[reggieM]

It was, as Miller asserted, a theological statment, not a scientific one, and he did eventually convince his co-author to drop it, and the publisher to omit it from later editions.

Interesting, a theological statement found in a science book. I wonder how that happened. Funny that I don’t see any theological statements in plumbing manuals.

Additionally, it was a theological statement that just happened to deny that God had anything to do with creation. And it was published for 8 years in successive editions of that book.

So, this is part of Miller’s legacy. Indoctrination of a generation of students in atheism, then when caught, just say it was a mistake and take the text out. I notice Barbarian’s attempt to defend this as well.

But we should trust scientists, of course. So they taught a little atheism with their science – big deal.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It was, as Miller asserted, a theological statment, not a scientific one, and he did eventually convince his co-author to drop it, and the publisher to omit it from later editions.

Interesting, a theological statement found in a science book. I wonder how that happened.

Someone didn’t examine his presuppositions very well.

Funny that I don’t see any theological statements in plumbing manuals.

Not lately. But I’d be surprised if it never happened. People are fallible.

So, this is part of Miller’s legacy. Indoctrination of a generation of students in atheism, then when caught, just say it was a mistake and take the text out.

You’re claiming that he took it out after someone “caught” him? Be honest with yourself, at least. And incidentally, nothing about God not existing. That was another Reggie moment.

 

[reggieM]

Be honest …

You really ought to try stand-up comedy. You’re not that funny but at least you’d be working in the right context.

 

[reggieM]

Salvo Magazine with a full issue on Intelligent Design.

salvomag.com/new/mag/salvo4.php

Their editorial staff has some familiar names:

Fr. Mitch Pacwa
Fr. Ron Tacelli
Mark Brumley

and others.

I hadn’t seen this publication before.

 

[reggieM]

Atheism was represented by the 1979 Nobelist in physics, Steven Weinberg who pulled no punches: whatever naturalism is, he said, it is better than religion, which is tantamount to belief in fairies. (Weinberg had famously said a few years earlier, “I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion, but not a constructive dialogue.”) Science has tended to destroy religion and has allowed intelligent people to reject God, asserts Weinberg, adding, “We should not retreat from this accomplishment.” As more of life is naturalistically explained, religion is forced down three escape hatches: denial, render or compromise. What Weinberg saw at the conference—arguments for God in a fine-tuned universe—was “an enormous retreat” from the bad old days when God was seen everywhere.

Yet for all the prowess of science, Weinberg found the Nature of Nature forum “rather alarming” because it was trying to “turn naturalism into a philosophical dogma, which has a right to equal time, but no more so than theories of fairies.” The attack on science won’t work, he argued, because ordinary people know that naturalism is more reliable than faith, just as weather reports are preferred over prayers for rain. It’s really scandalous how naturalistic the weather bureau has become” he said with heavy sarcasm.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Hi Barbarian, I’m not ReggieM but want to reply regarding your comment above and the following one below. First off, you really need to read the Compendium OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH Jesus ‘illuminates the mystery’ of omnipotent You are taking a creationist position by your above statement and making God omnipresent which isn’t the teaching of the Church.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

**Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible. These last words of the definition do not imply any imperfection, since a power that extends to every possibility must be perfect. **

From the Catechism:
268 Of all the divine attributes, only God’s omnipotence is named in the Creed: to confess this power has great bearing on our lives. We believe that his might is universal, for God who created everything also rules everything and can do everything. God’s power is loving, for he is our Father, and mysterious, for only faith can discern it when it “is made perfect in weakness”.
scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

Barbarian observes:
Physics indicates that it’s much more elegant than that. God created nature with a very simple foundation, that works out the way He intends. In fact, He remains intimately involved with every aspect of it, and it is the way He does things in our world. That it is understandable and predictable is no more suprising than it is surprising that He is trustworthy and good in other things.

You have again taken a creationist’s position by making God omnipresent which isn’t the teaching of the Church.

Hmmm…

**God transcends creation and is present to it.

300 God is infinitely greater than all his works: "You have set your glory above the heavens."156 Indeed, God’s “greatness is unsearchable”.157 But because he is the free and sovereign Creator, the first cause of all that exists, God is present to his creatures’ inmost being: "In him we live and move and have our being."158 In the words of St. Augustine, God is “higher than my highest and more inward than my innermost self”.159

God upholds and sustains creation.

301 With creation, God does not abandon his creatures to themselves. He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, enables them to act and brings them to their final end. Recognizing this utter dependence with respect to the Creator is a source of wisdom and freedom, of joy and confidence: **
scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

Truthfully Barbarian, you are taking a gnostic view of God which is against the teachings of the Chruch (VATICAN:Holy See).

How could the Catechism be contrary to the teachings of the Church? How could it be “gnostic?”

 

[reggieM]

You have again taken a creationist’s position by making God omnipresent …

Aside from the fact that the Church does indeed teach that God is omnipresent, perhaps wildleafblower is seeing the problem more clearly than I thought she would.

I would like to hear more explanation on your views, wildleaf. I just think you’re being consistent, even though I disagree.

 

[wildleafblower]

Barbarian I stand behind my message 443. You provided a url to a website that isn’t from the Vatican:Holy See. And you still have negleted to read the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the new Catechism which are the teachings of the church. You might try to understand the truth about science by acknowledging Pope John Paul II statement “Science is Truth” and by reading the Compendium OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCHPart One, The Profession of Faith, Section One *
*“I believe” – “We believe”.

1. Why is there **no contradiction ***between faith and science?

159 Though faith is above reason, there can never be a contradiction between faith and science because both originate in God. It is God himself who gives to us the light both of reason and of faith.

“I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe.” (Saint Augustine)

An omnipresent God doesn’t exist in the THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. The word omnipresent doesn’t exist. Barbarian you have presented God as such as I’ve mentioned in my message 443. Semantically you have that is.

**The Compendium *of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is only located on the VATICAN:Holy See website. It gives further information about the new CATECHISM. The NEW AMERICAN BIBLE IS THERE TOO!

 

[The_Barbarian]

I don’t see any contradictions between the fact that God and science are compatible, and the teaching of the Catechism:

An omnipresent God doesn’t exist in the THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

The word I used was “omnipotent.” As you see, the Church teaches that He is omnipotent. It also teaches, as I mentioned that He is intimately involved with every aspect of creation:

**301 With creation, God does not abandon his creatures to themselves. He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, enables them to act and brings them to their final end. **

From the Compendium of the Catechism:

**50. What does it mean to say that God is almighty?

268-278

God reveals himself as “the strong One, the mighty One” (Psalm 24:8), as the One “to whom nothing is impossible” (Luke 1:37). **
vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html#God%20Comes%20to%20Meet%20Man

The word omnipresent doesn’t exist.

Odd then, that you were able to spell it. At any rate, if it exists, it does not mean the same thing as “omnipotent”, the word I used.

Barbarian you have presented God as such as I’ve mentioned in my message 443. Semantically you have that is.

If so, then so has the Catechism.

301 With creation, God does not abandon his creatures to themselves. He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, enables them to act and brings them to their final end. Recognizing this utter dependence with respect to the Creator is a source of wisdom and freedom, of joy and confidence:
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm#I

Notice that this one is from the Vatican archive. Same thing.

I am a scientist. Science is my life’s work. And I agree with the pope, that “science is truth.” But I give you the caveat; all truth in science is provisional on future evidence. The truth from the Church is not provisional.

 

[Wolseley]

Atheism was represented by the 1979 Nobelist in physics, Steven Weinberg who pulled no punches: whatever naturalism is, he said, it is better than religion, which is tantamount to belief in fairies. (Weinberg had famously said a few years earlier, “I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion, but not a constructive dialogue.”) Science has tended to destroy religion and has allowed intelligent people to reject God, asserts Weinberg, adding, “We should not retreat from this accomplishment.”

Sounds sort of like the statement made by evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin:

"…we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

(“Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, pp. 28, 31, emphasis mine).

Their agenda is clear and unmuddied.

 

[reggieM]

Yet another revealing quote. Thanks, Wolseley.

 

[reggieM]

The Nature and Attributes of God
Catholic Encylopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

Divine immensity means on the one hand that God is necessarily present everywhere in space as the immanent cause and sustainer of creatures, and on the other hand that He transcends the limitations of actual and possible space, and cannot be circumscribed or measured or divided by any spatial relations. To say that God is immense is only another way of saying that He is both immanent and transcendent in the sense already explained. As some one has metaphorically and paradoxically expressed it, “God’s centre is everywhere, His circumference nowhere.”

That God is not subject to spatial limitations follows from His infinite simplicity; and that He is truly present in every place or thing – that He is omnipresent or ubiquitous – follows from the fact that He is the cause and ground of all reality. According to our finite manner of thinking we conceive this presence of God in things spatial as being primarily a presence of power and operation – immediate Divine efficiency being required to sustain created beings in existence and to enable them to act; but, as every kind of Divine action ad extra is really identical with the Divine nature or essence, it follows that God is really present everywhere in creation not merely per virtuten et operationem, but per essentiam. In other words God Himself, or the Divine nature, is in immediate contact with, or immanent in, every creature – conserving it in being and enabling it to act. But while insisting on this truth we must, if we would avoid contradiction, reject every form of the pantheistic hypothesis. While emphasizing Divine immanence we must not overlook Divine transcendence.

There is no lack of Scriptural or ecclesiastical testimonies asserting God’s immensity and ubiquity. It is enough to refer for example to:

Heb. i, 3 iv, 12, 13
Acts, xvii, 24, 27, 28;
Eph., i, 23;
Col., i, ;6, 17,
Ps. cxxxviii, 7-12;
Job, xii, 10, etc.

 

[Wolseley]

My pleasure, reggie.

 

[reggieM]

The fact that God is omnipresent is de fide Catholic teaching.

newadvent.org/cathen/12396a.htm

First, **it is of faith **that God is present by His Essence everywhere and in all things by reason of His Immensity. (Creed of St. Athanasius; Council of Lateran, c. “Firmiter”; Vatican Council, Sess. III, c. 1.)