Questions for Evolution-Deniers

[NowAgnostic]

Do you deny that the origin of all species, including human ones, could have arisen by common descent with either directed, as opposed to “chance” mutation? “Directed” mutation could mean either:

a) a direct manipulation of the genome by God or some other entity with the power to do so (“guided” evolution); or
b) the initial conditions (immediately after the Big Bang for instance) being such that what would otherwise be considered “highly unlikely” being, in fact, highly probable given the initial conditions, whether these initial conditions were willed by God or not. (This position is sometimes called “Front-loaded” evolution.)

Personally, I don’t hold to evolution by “random chance” mutation since I hold the expression as meaningless; “random chance” simply means an expression of our ignorance. If I bet $100 at a blackjack table and draw a blackjack, sure I might say I was “lucky” and that “chance” favored me, but all this really means is that I was ignorant of the arrangement of the cards in the deck being dealt to me.

Now there’s nothing logically impossible about a) or b). If you have an argument, I’d love to hear it. But, if either a) or b) are possible, then all the supposed “difficulties” with evolution completely vanish, such as the Cambrian explosion, or the appearance of fully-formed limbs in the fossil record, etc. You’re only arguing about the philosophical implications of the theory, not the theory itself. Now you may wish to argue that evolution doesn’t imply atheism; and, indeed, it doesn’t. But you don’t need all the fancy, but ultimately silly, “arguments” against evolution to show that.

 

[Areopagite]

Do you deny that the origin of all species, including human ones, could have arisen by common descent with either directed, as opposed to “chance” mutation? “Directed” mutation could mean either:

a) a direct manipulation of the genome by God or some other entity with the power to do so (“guided” evolution); or
b) the initial conditions (immediately after the Big Bang for instance) being such that what would otherwise be considered “highly unlikely” being, in fact, highly probable given the initial conditions, whether these initial conditions were willed by God or not. (This position is sometimes called “Front-loaded” evolution.)

Personally, I don’t hold to evolution by “random chance” mutation since I hold the expression as meaningless; “random chance” simply means an expression of our ignorance. If I bet $100 at a blackjack table and draw a blackjack, sure I might say I was “lucky” and that “chance” favored me, but all this really means is that I was ignorant of the arrangement of the cards in the deck being dealt to me.

Now there’s nothing logically impossible about a) or b). If you have an argument, I’d love to hear it. But, if either a) or b) are possible, then all the supposed “difficulties” with evolution completely vanish, such as the Cambrian explosion, or the appearance of fully-formed limbs in the fossil record, etc. You’re only arguing about the philosophical implications of the theory, not the theory itself. Now you may wish to argue that evolution doesn’t imply atheism; and, indeed, it doesn’t. But you don’t need all the fancy, but ultimately silly, “arguments” against evolution to show that.

It’s a very fair question.

I can’t answer this because I’m ignorant of something … particularly, has it been proven that organic matter can be assembled from inorganic matter through natural processes (either by natural intelligent designers or mindless circumstances)?

 

[NowAgnostic]

It’s a very fair question.

I can’t answer this because I’m ignorant of something … particularly, has it been proven that organic matter can be assembled from inorganic matter through natural processes (either by natural intelligent designers or mindless circumstances)?

I’d say yes… DNA has been synthesized. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_synthesis

Although I don’t understand the relevance… the same argument could be applied to abiogenesis instead of evolution. We could have either direct manipulation of inorganic matter by God into proteins and DNA, etc., or “front-loaded” abiogenesis due to the initial conditions.

 

[Elvenwarrior]

I’m not sure who the question is directed to exactly. There are quite a number of problems with the title and the way the question is phrased in that respect, but won’t spend time on that since I’m guessing it’s more a matter of semantics.

So I’ll break the question down personally, and then what the Catholic Church teaches.

I personally find there to be a lack of evidence for evolution, despite all that I’ve read about it. The reasons are considerable in number and gravity, but I’ll try to be simple and just say that I sincerely doubt the “Theory of Evolution” to be a true one, and it’s definitely not a proven “theory” (thus the word theory.) I tend to think the so-called “Creationist” view is much closer to my view. I will admit however, that if I find at some time in the future the “evolution” argument to hold more validity than I’ve found in it now, I’m quite open to the possibility of a sort of “guided evolution.” i.e. Matter created by God that went through some for of “evolutionary process” to produce human beings. That would really only be an slightly more indirect means of creating humans.

The Church’s teachings are that either is possible, and a permissible view, as long as God is not taken out of the picture. The Church is pretty clear that the soul obviously would not “evolve,” and thus while say and ape-like creature might slowly evolve into a human-like creature, it is not until God gives the creature a human soul that it is in fact a human being with reason, and intellect, and in reality the creature we today call “human.”

I hope that is a helpful response.

 

[Areopagite]

I’d say yes… DNA has been synthesized. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_synthesis

Perhaps I was speaking unconventionally (and even unscientifically). When I meant “organic” I was referring to the adjectival form of “organism.” Let me rephrase:

Has an organism ever been produced from mere inorganic matter?

DNA, correct me if I’m wrong, is not an organism.

Although I don’t understand the relevance… the same argument could be applied to abiogenesis instead of evolution. We could have either direct manipulation of inorganic matter by God into proteins and DNA, etc., or “front-loaded” abiogenesis due to the initial conditions.

The relevance (and perhaps I’m crazy) is that if natural processes cannot be manipulated to produce organic life, the question of “can life come about without God” should be answered no. Now, since it has not been proved either way that life can come about from inorganic matter through purely natural processes, I would say that I cannot answer the question.

But perhaps I’ve overlooked something here.

 

[Lynxdk]

It’s a very fair question.

I can’t answer this because I’m ignorant of something … particularly, has it been proven that organic matter can be assembled from inorganic matter through natural processes (either by natural intelligent designers or mindless circumstances)?

Getting there:
sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091120124829.htm

 

[Elvenwarrior]

Reminds me of the joke where scientists finally figure out how to “create man” in exactly the same manner God did. They say to God,

“We don’t need you anymore, we’ve discovered how to make man just like you did.”

And God replies, “Did you?”

And the scientists say, “Yes we can breath life into inanimate dust!”

To which Gods says, “Show me.”

The scientists then take some dirt from the ground and begin the process when God says, “Wait wait…I created man out of dust, and I created dust. So make your own dust.”

 

[AlbertBall]

The reasons are considerable in number and gravity, but I’ll try to be simple and just say that I sincerely doubt the “Theory of Evolution” to be a true one, *and it’s definitely not a proven “theory” (thus the word theory.) *

Here we go again …

 

[wanstronian]

Let’s get something straight:

Evolution is a scientific fact. The evidence for it, from fossil record to homology, is overwhelming.

People (especially creationists) refer to “the theory of evolution” without realising that, in fact, they are not referring to evolution as a theory, but to the *process *by which evolution undeniably occurs. This gives rise to the common and erroneous mantra of “it’s only a theory,” implying that evolution might not be true. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Evolution IS true.

The theory of evolution refers to the process by which evolution works. The extant theory, which is held by all scientists in this field whose work is accepted by other scientists in the field, is that this process is natural selection. Natural selection in a nutshell, for the benefit of those who think they understand it but actually don’t, is when a random genetic mutation results in a slight survivability advantage to the host organism, such that the host survives long enough to pass that mutation on to its offspring.

 

[06convert]

Let’s get something straight:

Evolution is a scientific fact. The evidence for it, from fossil record to homology, is overwhelming.

Some would say that fossil records and homology provide more evidence of creation than of evolution.

 

[tjm190]

Some would say that fossil records and homology provide more evidence of creation than of evolution.

Some would also say that a dropped frame in a video taken by a bystander of the 9/11 attacks proves a conspiracy was afoot. Both groups of people are either overly ignorant or lying.

 

[wanstronian]

Some would say that fossil records and homology provide more evidence of creation than of evolution.

Those people would be either ignorant or dishonest.

 

[AlbertBall]

is when a random genetic mutation results in a slight survivability advantage .

I agree with everything you said, however (and I’m just picking at straws) i would say a reproductive advantage instead of survivability.

Yes survivability is a reproductive advantage, but you can also get reproductive advantages that in the long term decrease survivability. In other words evolution is all about how well individuals can propagate, not how well it is adapted for survival. Reproduction drives evolution, survivability is just one factor.

 

[James_S_Saint]

When I asked this questions years ago, the general consensus was that the word “evolution” necessarily refers to “unguided (‘random’) events” and thus necessarily excludes any God concept.

At that point, I had to declare that the definition itself is an oxymoron. But the definition gradually changed over the years and now seems to represent merely a “tread of events that leads toward more complex development”. It reminds me of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in that the law keeps getting rewritten so as to save face for its proponents.

As stated in this OP, evolution is inherently being defined as merely “Evolution == things get developed from lesser to greater”.

I have to question whether human kind is improving or getting worse actually. Perhaps it is merely becoming more homogeneous, less than its prior best but greater than its prior worst. Societies (Man) appear to show the same effect.

Some things change upward. Some things change downward. Change is required (although not in all things).

Evolution is merely a focus on ONE aspect of all that is going on. With that in mind, when the definition actually makes sense, it is an unavoidable fact, Science or no Science, Scripture or no Scripture.

Is evolution the ONLY thing that causes development (is Evolution God)? Of course not (until they redefine it again to include ALL potential influences).

 

[buffalo]

I’d say yes… DNA has been synthesized. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_synthesis

Although I don’t understand the relevance… the same argument could be applied to abiogenesis instead of evolution. We could have either direct manipulation of inorganic matter by God into proteins and DNA, etc., or “front-loaded” abiogenesis due to the initial conditions.

What language is programmed into this DNA?

 

[ricmat]

NowAgnostic: apparently you haven’t heard…“deniers” is no longer PC. Unless you want to include “global warming fraud deniers.”

Do you deny that the origin of all species, including human ones, could have arisen by common descent with either directed, as opposed to “chance” mutation? “Directed” mutation could mean either:

a) a direct manipulation of the genome by God or some other entity with the power to do so (“guided” evolution); or
b) the initial conditions (immediately after the Big Bang for instance) being such that what would otherwise be considered “highly unlikely” being, in fact, highly probable given the initial conditions, whether these initial conditions were willed by God or not. (This position is sometimes called “Front-loaded” evolution.)

Personally, I believe in both “a” and “b” above in combination. You need “b” (fine-tuning) to get the basic materials and environment “ready for life”. And you need “a” in order to get life started to begin with and then to get to complex life in only a few billion years. With regard to complex life being exclusively “front loaded” - an inevitable outcome of the initial conditions - I’m not aware of any evidence for that, and it would seem to fall apart without “a”.

So no, I don’t deny that those happened, IMHO I think they actually did happen. My contrariness to standard evolution theory has always been the part about “random” mutations.

Personally, I don’t hold to evolution by “random chance” mutation since I hold the expression as meaningless; “random chance” simply means an expression of our ignorance. If I bet $100 at a blackjack table and draw a blackjack, sure I might say I was “lucky” and that “chance” favored me, but all this really means is that I was ignorant of the arrangement of the cards in the deck being dealt to me.

But use the roulette wheel as an example instead. There is nothing you could know in advance (like the arrangement of cards in a deck) that would allow you to improve your chances. This has nothing to do with ignorance.

Now there’s nothing logically impossible about a) or b). If you have an argument, I’d love to hear it. But, if either a) or b) are possible, then all the supposed “difficulties” with evolution completely vanish, such as the Cambrian explosion, or the appearance of fully-formed limbs in the fossil record, etc. You’re only arguing about the philosophical implications of the theory, not the theory itself. Now you may wish to argue that evolution doesn’t imply atheism; and, indeed, it doesn’t. But you don’t need all the fancy, but ultimately silly, “arguments” against evolution to show that.

I agree with you here, but would like to say it certainly seems that unguided-Godless nature (which precludes a and b above) is a tool being used extensively to attack religion. People get defensive. You probably understand.

 

[NowAgnostic]

Personally, I believe in both “a” and “b” above in combination. You need “b” (fine-tuning) to get the basic materials and environment “ready for life”. And you need “a” in order to get life started to begin with and then to get to complex life in only a few billion years. With regard to complex life being exclusively “front loaded” - an inevitable outcome of the initial conditions - I’m not aware of any evidence for that, and it would seem to fall apart without “a”.

Oh it could certainly happen, God could arrange the initial conditions vs. intervene “directly”.

So no, I don’t deny that those happened, IMHO I think they actually did happen. My contrariness to standard evolution theory has always been the part about “random” mutations.

Yes, the word is meaningless. When pressed, biologists mean “random with respect to fitness” which does not mean ontologically random (as for instance in quantum mechanics) - it just means we can’t predict with certainty whether the next mutation will be beneficial or deleterious.

But use the roulette wheel as an example instead. There is nothing you could know in advance (like the arrangement of cards in a deck) that would allow you to improve your chances. This has nothing to do with ignorance.

Sure you could, if you knew the initial rotational velocity of the wheel, the elasticity of the wheel and the ball, etc., you could predict where the ball was going to land.

I agree with you here, but would like to say it certainly seems that unguided-Godless nature (which precludes a and b above) is a tool being used extensively to attack religion. People get defensive. You probably understand.

Yeah but bad arguments shouldn’t be answered by more bad arguments.

 

[buffalo]

Yes, the word is meaningless. When pressed, biologists mean “random with respect to fitness” which does not mean ontologically random (as for instance in quantum mechanics) - it just means we can’t predict with certainty whether the next mutation will be beneficial or deleterious.

.

Wouldn’t that be a failure of predictability? as in observable, testable and predictable

 

[ricmat]

Oh it could certainly happen, God could arrange the initial conditions vs. intervene “directly”.

Yes, I agree. But what I said is that I don’t see any evidence that the fine tuning (which I do accept in general) leads all the way to complex life. A world suitable for life, yes. Life, no.

In other words, I’m not aware of any natural law (all of which resulted from the fine tuning of the big bang) that forces (or even biases) the right mutations to occur in a timely fashion, and in the right order.

 

[Abu]

Since threads are arbitrarily removed confusion needs to be clarified:

NowAgnostic
Well if you mean “proof” of common ancestry, it is there, in the DNA, at least in humans and primates, it’s as good as empirical “proof” can get. But you’ll of course just ignore this and pretend it doesn’t exist, all the while criticizing “evolutionists” for ignoring the evidence supposedly debunking evolution.

Genetic similarity between apes (particularly, chimpanzees) and humans—in itself—is compatible with either common descent or common design. Since pre-Darwinian scientists such as Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778) recognized similarities between species and classified organisms accordingly without assuming common ancestry and since similar body structures are usually built using similar genes, it is not surprising that our genes are very similar to those of chimps. The fusion evidence merely tells us that our ancestors—whether essentially human or otherwise —once had forty-eight chromosomes. It does not tell us whether our ancestors were related to modern apes.

Francis Collins himself admits that shared functional similarities between two organisms does little to assist in discriminating between common ancestry and common design with separate ancestry. Thus, the evidence for chromosomal fusion in humans provides no special evidence for common ancestry between humans and apes.

In the past, Darwinists loudly proclaimed that much of our DNA contained repetitive elements that are meaningless. Darwinists have claimed this major portion of DNA is selfish or parasitic DNA that invades and becomes inserted into our genomes: only eight years ago, Richard Dawkins specifically targeted repetitive DNA as undesigned “junk,” writing that “creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with . . .junk tandem repeat DNA. But geneticists are constantly disproving the assumption that non-coding DNA is “junk.”
[See <i>Intelligent Design 101</i>: A Reply to Francis Collinss Darwinian Arguments for Common Ancestry of Apes and Humans]

“An argument against random mutations in the Darwinian theory is that, for a new species to survive, both a male and a female of the species would have to appear at approximately the same time and place. This problem would be answered if the transformation were effected by creative divine intervention in the genome of the predecessor together with the instilling of a rational soul. And the “rib” of Adam, from which Eve was made, could have been the genome of Adam.”
rtforum.org/lt/lt125.html