Science only Evolution Thread

[edwest2]

I dont believe in your God, so the point is kinda moot.

Thanks to science, we dont need to appeal to magic for a great many things.

Meteorology conflicts with the understanding that weather systems dont occur because God is pleased/displeased, or is trying to punish/reward people. It doesn’t invoke God at all. As per mathmatics, it shows us infinitly complex systems can occur naturally w/o a creator ie. Fractals.

With all due respect, here is an example of how much one’s worldview matters. It is valid to say many natural processes are observable and attributable to phenomenon that can be understood, like the formation of lightning.

And while science has contributed to man’s understanding of the world around him, it cannot answer other fundamental questions about man, although, clearly, it is trying to. It appears that biological robot is as far as it can go.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Isambard]

.

Forgot to add

-Though when I was a believer, I always found it strange that a perfect God could create natural systems imperfectly that’d he’d need to jump in occationally to get something to happen.

 

[edwest2]

What do you mean, “evolution as taught”? As opposed to what other version of evolution?

Anyway, it’s a rather silly comment. To borrow the punchline to the old joke, “get your own dirt!”. If evolution explains why everything that leads up to evolution exists, then I guess your statement is true. If evolution explains why the universe exists, with the laws that exist and the physical constants that exist and the initial conditions that existed, then I guess your statement is true. Does evolution explain all that?

Your comment is essentially “hey, I found a bunch of tools and plans in this new house, so I conclude that this house had no builder.”

Interesting. I wonder what scientists would say if they found an obviously artificial device on Mars, with multiple, mechanical interrelated parts? No one made this? It occurred naturally?

As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, the wood used to make a boat does not have the power to assemble into the boat without an outside force acting on the wood.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Isambard]

Interesting. I wonder what scientists would say if they found an obviously artificial device on Mars, with multiple, mechanical interrelated parts? No one made this? It occurred naturally?

As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, the wood used to make a boat does not have the power to assemble into the boat without an outside force acting on the wood.

God bless,
Ed

The difference is that biological organisms can reproduce without a “maker” stepping in everytime a couple has sex.

 

[edwest2]

Forgot to add

-Though when I was a believer, I always found it strange that a perfect God could create natural systems imperfectly that’d he’d need to jump in occationally to get something to happen.

Oh He did everything right the first time but man disobeyed. Through miracles, God can drop in or modify what He wills.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Sideline]

Hey everybody, here’s a thought:

There are like a billion threads on this forum about how evolutionary scientists are atheists using evolution as a wedge to nudge God out of the picture.

How about we leave one thread as a discussion to discuss so-called “scientific problems” with evolution? A place where people would discuss the theory and the science, and not whether the Pope believes it, or whether it is ideologically compatible with faith. We could call it the “Science Only Evolution Thread”.

I thought it was a great idea myself, so I started a thread just like it back in April. Perhaps such a thread belongs in Philosophy, but since there was so much debate in the Apologetics forum about transitional fossils and the difference between abiogenesis and evolution (no “m” in abiogenesis by the way).

So what do you think, should the “Science Only Evolution Thread” talk about science?

 

[VociMike]

Hey everybody, here’s a thought:

There are like a billion threads on this forum about how evolutionary scientists are atheists using evolution as a wedge to nudge God out of the picture.

How about we leave one thread as a discussion to discuss so-called “scientific problems” with evolution? A place where people would discuss the theory and the science, and not whether the Pope believes it, or whether it is ideologically compatible with faith. We could call it the “Science Only Evolution Thread”.

I thought it was a great idea myself, so I started a thread just like it back in April. Perhaps such a thread belongs in Philosophy, but since there was so much debate in the Apologetics forum about transitional fossils and the difference between abiogenesis and evolution (no “m” in abiogenesis by the way).

So what do you think? Should the “Science Only Evolution Thread” talk about science?

Well, I’m a Catholic who doesn’t care very much about evolution. The reason I don’t care is that I don’t see it as the least bit threatening. So with that in mind I’m curious whether “evolutionists” would say that the claims of evolution theory have been in any way oversold or misrepresented. The sense I get is that the science has been rather strongly agenda-ized. How true is this, if at all? How much junk science (as judged by some hypothetical objective scientist without an ax to grind) is there in evolution science?

 

[reggieM]

What is so special about the creation of the human form that to suggest an evolutionary process is an affront to your concept of God?

Well, we might consider that a new book gives conclusive evidence that Darwin plagerized Alfred Russel Wallace’s ideas as his own.

We can see also …

Wallace simply couldn’t agree that the human intellect could be explained by natural selection; something else, a higher spiritual force or power had to be invoked.

Wallace insisted that natural selection and “survival of the fittest” (a term he suggested Darwin adopt) can account for much in nature but not everything. It cannot account for the origin of life, consciousness of animals, and the intellect of man; only an “Overruling Intelligence” can do that, he argued. Thus, Wallace had constructed a thoroughly teleological form of evolution. He gave full expression to this in what this reviewer believes to be his magnum opus revealingly titled, The World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose (1910).

 

[Sideline]

Well, we might consider that a new book gives conclusive evidence that Darwin plagerized Alfred Russel Wallace’s ideas as his own.

And that book would be?

Everyone knows that Darwin and Wallace worked together. It’s a very well documented story. I’m not sure what this new book could say that hasn’t been reported in all of the many histories on the subject.

We can see also …

Wallace simply couldn’t agree that the human intellect could be explained by natural selection; something else, a higher spiritual force or power had to be invoked.

Did you know that Sir Isaac Newton, possibly the smartest man who ever lived said that divine providence had to step in from time to time to keep the solar system stable? He thought that God had to step in from time to time and nudge the solar system back into alignment.

Laplace thought differently, and helped form our current understanding of the solar system. When asked where God came into the equation, he said, “I had no need of that hypothesis.”

Wallace wasn’t able to understand how human intellect could evolve, and so he said it needed to be the work of God. While God is busy putting Jupiter back into place, He is remapping the frontal lobe in humans, and putting flagella on bacteria.

Of course the person whose idea of evolution was less well thought out than Darwin’s didn’t understand all of details any more than Newton understood every thing that was going on in our solar system. So they said it had to be God. According to most theistic evolutionists, they were right. It just wasn’t a correction after the clock had started ticking down on the universe. All of the planning went on in the beginning.

Wallace insisted that natural selection and “survival of the fittest” (a term he suggested Darwin adopt) can account for much in nature but not everything. It cannot account for the origin of life, consciousness of animals, and the intellect of man; only an “Overruling Intelligence” can do that, he argued. Thus, Wallace had constructed a thoroughly teleological form of evolution. He gave full expression to this in what this reviewer believes to be his magnum opus revealingly titled, The World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose (1910).

If you read a biology textbook, you will see that natural selection doesn’t explain everything. Darwin and Wallace didn’t know about genes. They hadn’t taken into account genetic drift, the founding effect, and mutations.

Science doesn’t work the same way that religion does. You can’t go back and look at the “early evolutionary fathers” to find the pure teaching of science. It is a process of speculating, testing, re-testing, debating, re-speculating, re-re-testing, overthrowing, reconsidering, re-debating, etc. Out of that whole messy process people discover that a lot our assumptions turn out to be wrong, but in the process, they discover that somethings seem to stick. There are certain facts that just can’t be explained any other way.

In other words, Wallace is a bit behind the curve on the whole evolution debate.

 

[reggieM]

In other words, Wallace is a bit behind the curve on the whole evolution debate.

Whatever is claimed today about evolution will be considered “behind the curve” in a few years also.

Some scientists have found that Darwin’s theory is so behind the curve that it has to be abandoned.

 

[Sideline]

Well, I’m a Catholic who doesn’t care very much about evolution. The reason I don’t care is that I don’t see it as the least bit threatening. So with that in mind I’m curious whether “evolutionists” would say that the claims of evolution theory have been in any way oversold or misrepresented. The sense I get is that the science has been rather strongly agenda-ized. How true is this, if at all? How much junk science (as judged by some hypothetical objective scientist without an ax to grind) is there in evolution science?

If you read my answer to ReggieM, I think in some ways it answers this question. Science is a messy process with all sorts of people trying to grab a part of the intellectual pie. Just as there is in any field of study.

Generally speaking, what makes it into the textbooks has been pretty thoroughly vetted. It might not be 100% accurate, but it is as close as we can get right now.

Looking at a bookshelf at a random store or library is going to yield far more speculation and junk science. Anyone can write a book about anything as long as they can get someone to publish it. Books written by biologists often contain the unfiltered opinions of the biologists themselves. They might have very good opinions, or terrible one, it depends on the biologist. Getting published in academic journals is a lot harder, because of the peer review process, but even there the biases of the reviewer/s come into play. Some journals are far more discriminating that others. Generally, it is more prestigious to get published in the better journals. Becoming the accepted norm in science is harder still.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The sense I get is that the science has been rather strongly agenda-ized. How true is this, if at all?

I’m not aware of any. There’s Dawkins, but even he doesn’t say that evolution rules out God. Can you think of any at all?

How much junk science (as judged by some hypothetical objective scientist without an ax to grind) is there in evolution science?

Can’t think of any in the sense of an axe to grind. But I can think of some research papers I’ve read that qualified as junk IMO.

 

[reggieM]

Books written by biologists often contain the unfiltered opinions of the biologists themselves. They might have very good opinions, or terrible one, it depends on the biologist. Getting published in academic journals is a lot harder, because of the peer review process, but even there the biases of the reviewer/s come into play. Some journals are far more discriminating that others. Generally, it is more prestigious to get published in the better journals. Becoming the accepted norm in science is harder still.

Part of it is a popularity contest, or perhaps better, a democratic process. Scientists and journals “vote” for what they’ll publish or what theories they “like”.

We’ll hear about this when someone says “every scientist agrees” about whatever topic. In other cases, like evolutionary theory for example, it’s not true that “every scientist” has given a vote of approval for it.

 

[Sideline]

Whatever is claimed today about evolution will be considered “behind the curve” in a few years also.

Some scientists have found that Darwin’s theory is so behind the curve that it has to be abandoned.

I find it sad that you only chose to responded to the last line of my post, when I went to a fair amount of effort to respond to yours. I wonder why you even introduced the subject of Wallace if you had no interest in discussing it.

 

[VociMike]

I’m not aware of any. There’s Dawkins, but even he doesn’t say that evolution rules out God. Can you think of any at all?

I’m not even thinking “evolution rules out God,” but more along the lines of trying to make the evolution case stronger than the data merits. This could be conscious or subconscious, and most likely tied in with the opposition that evolution has faced since the beginning; whether in reaction to unscientific opposition or due to a kind of scientific triumphalism.

But again, I’m just asking, not making any claims.

 

[OldeThom]

What a fun post to read - many good observations, comments and reasoning. I personally ascribe to the theory of evolution as supported by the Church in that science, in it’s search for truth and fact, not contradict Moral Teaching and the Truth. “Truth cannot contradict Truth.” Pope John Paul II said, “In his encyclical Humani Generis, my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation… Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines.” The Church has come a long way in accepting scientific theory and is moving forward, keeping up with scientific, social and cultural trends. (After all a mere four hundred years ago - or less - both Pope John Paul II and Pius XII would have been branded as heretics or worse.)

A really weird “science” still popular, making noise in the underbelly of society is so-called “Christian Rationalism.” Where evolution is closely tied to reincarnation. Now that is really scary “science” (but not new.)

Respectfully,
Thom

 

[Isambard]

.Some scientists have found that Darwin’s theory is so behind the curve that it has to be abandoned.

How many of these scientists are biologists?

 

[Isambard]

Oh He did everything right the first time but man disobeyed. Through miracles, God can drop in or modify what He wills.

Peace,
Ed

If God needs to modify things, then that means the perfect God created an imperfect system. Something that should be impossible unless God is imperfect to begin with.

 

[The_Barbarian]

If God needs to modify things, then that means the perfect God created an imperfect system. Something that should be impossible unless God is imperfect to begin with.

I’d like to see your reasoning that God cannot produce imperfection if He so desires.

 

[The_Barbarian]

How many of these scientists are biologists?

Last time I compared the Discovery Institute’s list with Project Steve, it indicated about 0.3 percent.