Science & Religion

[tonyrey]

That suggests you believe blind processes are superior to, and more powerful than, intelligence. Is that correct?

“blind” is more succinct than “devoid of insight”. No emotion is entailed on my part but your reaction doesn’t seem to be dispassionate! Blindness is certainly a disadvantage but it is not “bad” in the sense you imply.

That being said, “blind processes” are superior to intelligence in some ways, but not in others; it depends on what results you’re talking about.

You contrasted ecosystems with “well-intentioned but short-sighted meddling”…

General statements applicable to all situations are rather rare, though you seem particularly attached to them.

You seem to be making quite a few yourself, e.g.:

Neurons in the part of the brain governing decisions, plus whatever other parts are involved (e.g. fight or flight reflex) send signals to the relevant muscles which perform their task.

Alone, unaided and undirected!

 

[Elizabeth502]

You don’t have to answer because if we are essentially animals there is nothing to distinguish us from other species so that it does not make sense to claim we have free will, moral responsibility, human rights or any more significance than the insects we crush beneath our feet…

Precisely. Either there is a fundamental demarcation between man and other animals, which allows him, through grace, to transcend his nature by sharing initimately with the divine, or there is not. If man does not signal a quantum leap from the rest of creation, then even his

free will, moral responsibility, human rights

are not particularly special and are subject to reduction and rationalization by cultural anthropologists as mere socialization tools (reactions) to ensure adjustment for the species group.

All of creation is glorious and awesome. (And in biblical terms, “blessed.”) But only man has the capacity to respond to his creator (not just to the social group) in dynamic, conscious relationship, and thus to magnify throughout all of creation the creator’s original blessing. That’s why man is ontologically apart from the rest of creation, meta-physically separate.

 

[tonyrey]

“associated with” and “many” are the basis of your conclusion that all mental activity originates in the brain? Hardly scientific!

I’m not the one who has a scientific, soul-destroying view of reality…

These considerations are insignificant until you produce more evidence for your hypothesis…

“My” hypothesis, or the hypothesis you have invented for me because it’s easier to mock?

"Neurons in the part of the brain governing decisions" is not my invention - but the “mockery” is your invention. I simply stated a fact - that you need you produce more evidence.

Why not “outside the range of my brain”?

I don’t think my muscles or liver had anything to do with it…

But you believe “you” are your body - no more no less…

 

[grannymh]

Please, this closing post is not meant to offend anyone. I am unsubscribing.
It is only a humble personal observation which naturally everyone is free to deny.

While the interesting discussions on this thread have been vibrant, for the most part the few actual scientific challenges to the Catholic doctrine of monogenism have been on the empty side, i.e., the so-called evidence is extremely flimsy. Even the theological challenges consist of verbiage instead of sound reasoning. But this is o.k. in the sense that any discussion of issues is good because it alerts people to what is happening in the real world. Many individual opinions and speculations are being expressed which is excellent for this venue. Congratulations to all.

I certainly cannot complain.

Nonetheless, as I research the issue of two, real, sole ancestors of humanity off CAF and often from an anti-Catholic position, I solemnly believe that Catholic apologetics needs to be updated for
the 21st century.

Blessings,
granny

For the truth which is independent of belief, please read
paragraphs 355 - 421 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[inocente]

Neurotheology, also known as spiritual neuroscience, is the study of correlations of neural phenomena with subjective experiences of spirituality and hypotheses to explain these phenomena. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotheology
tonyrey;8559672:

Do you explain your “reasoning” as the result of correlations of neural phenomena?

As I said to StA, that was a quote from Wikipedia. I’ve not read up on it since it probably means fighting through atheists saying it proves God is all in the mind and religionists saying it proves God designed us to know Him, while all I’d be interested in is the science without the interpretations.

 

[inocente]

0000000000000000000>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>0000000000000000000000

Much ado about nothing?

Here’s the problem - by saying suffering in animals is evil except when caused by predators, you appear to be advocating a subjective utilitarianism, but that would contradict what you started off with (I think), that good and evil are objective. I’m confused by the bald claims sans any reasoning.

 

[inocente]

Christianity is based on the belief that we all descended from Adam and Eve. If Christians get rid of this belief, what is left? The whole belief system is based on claim that the first two humans disobeyed God. If the Church admits that Adam and Eve never existed, they would admit that there was never a fall, sin doesn’t exist and the existence of Jesus wasn’t necessary. That would more or less get rid of the whole belief system.

Nope. The clue’s in the name, Christianity is based on Christ.

 

[buffalo]

And if it did turn out to be true, science would then have to explain why the human genome appears to support a constant ancestry of 3,000-10,000 breeding pairs. Perhaps we could argue that God created single Adamic couple, but left faked evidence to suggest to scientists that there had been thousands more humans in the breeding population at the time. Since God determines morality, it would not be immoral of God to falsify evidence.

StAnastasia

Right - these must be reconciled. Appearance though can be deceiving. God did not leave faked evidence. That is so bush league… The evidence is there, it is man’s inability to grasp it all.

Again, if one is walking down the beach and sees only left footprints as far as one can see, should the conclusion be that a deceiver was at work? It is a bogus argument.

 

[inocente]

I totally respect the scientists who deal with humanity. However, it needs to be pointed out that many assumptions are made when dealing with “evidence” going millions and millions of years backwards.

Don’t see why you put the quotes around “evidence”. There are stars millions of light years away, yet we know for sure they are made of hydrogen from the great evidence of their light. Big change from the cosmology of Gen 1 - it says the Sun is different from the stars, we now know the Sun is a star.

And in the case of humans, isn’t it just a couple of hundred thousand rather than millions and millions of years?

Long before Protestants, Catholicism, in the person of St. Paul, was teaching the relationship between Adam and the coming of Jesus Christ, True God and True man.

Catholicism owns Paul in the same way England owns America.

Therefore, I accept and encourage the 21st century “benefits to humans” part of evolution and the “camp” theory falls apart.

I got confused, sounds like you’re saying you accept the fruits of the theory without accepting the theory, along the lines of those disingenuous guys who use their scientifically developed computers to say science is evil. If we evolved, we evolved, if we were specially created, we were specially created.

For instance the cross-over notion that we physically evolved and then got a specially created spiritual add-on needs a separate name imho, such as the Evo-creationism Jazz Fusion.

(edit - I wrote the post before you said you were off)

 

[buffalo]

If I remember rightly, what Buffalo said was that he believed the world was “at least 12,000 years old,” and beyond that was not prepared to say.
Of course, that’s like saying, “I believe the distance from New York to Los Angeles is at least 100 yards, but beyond that I’m not prepared to say.”

If my horizon was limited to 100 yards then I can express the minimum. Beyond that I could not say.

 

[buffalo]

This is impossible. Either evolution happened or it didn’t. If it did, it is “true for” everybody; if it didn’t, it is “false for” everybody. The same theory cannot be true for some and false for others at the same time and in the same sense.
Of course, different constituencies can believe opposite things, but that means that at least one side must be wrong. If you are using the word “truth” as a synonym for “belief,” you are falling into the confusion of the relativists. Truth is often independent of belief.

Agreed. That is why atheists do not respect theistic evolution.

 

[buffalo]

Yeah but he also says that he believes that the distance between NY and LA is more than 100 yards but he can’t say how much more BUT there are studies that show you can walk the distance in 30 minutes.

Ok, he actually said they found soft tissue in dinosaur fossils which, according to him, means they can’t be dead for 65 million years but rather a couple of thousand years.

Well there are peer-reviewed papers that say soft tissue cannot last that long. That leaves a dilemma. A reconciliation is needed.

 

[buffalo]

A false dilemma! Either evolution **occurred **by Design, it happened for no reason or it didn’t occur at all.

Then we have to answer:

Did God know what Adam would look like?

Did Adam look as God planned?

 

[buffalo]

I’m in the “human evolution definitely did happen, and there’s no evidence that a god had anything to do with it” camp, and the “if that is true, then it is ‘true for’ everybody” camp. Also the “I believe there may be a god but the Christian version seems very unlikely” camp.

Gee, I didn’t know.

 

[buffalo]

On the dinosaur tissue controversy, here’s an article on the discovery, with a relevant excerpt. I note that in Buffalo’s post #1463, he justifies the young earth notion for religious, not scientific, reasons; which means that he will interpret evidence like dino tissue to fit that theory, and question the age of dinosaurs rather than prevailing assumption about how fossils are preserved.
Schweitzer herself has emphasized the tentative nature of the discovery, which is not hemoglobin or red blood cells, but degraded fragments of hemoglobin and possible altered blood remnants. The chemicals may also be from geological processes and contamination.

From the Smithsonian article:
"Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science."

Read more: smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html#ixzz1dOZizPpb

See also G.S. Hurd, Dino-blood and the Young Earth, talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html

The date of the article is 2006. Much more has happened since then. Check it out…

 

[tonyrey]

You don’t have to answer because if we are essentially animals there is nothing to distinguish us from other species so that it does not make sense to claim we have free will, moral responsibility, human rights or any more significance than the insects we crush beneath our feet…

You imagine my “hostility”. My style is sometimes trenchant but it is simply to emphasize the truth. I stand by my statement until it is refuted.

Do chimpanzees have no free will?

The fact that they are not generally held morally or legally responsible speaks for itself.

Is everything they do dictated by instinct over which they have no control?

Everything they do has a physical cause.

Why would our status as animals deprive us of rights?

I specified human rights.
As for significance, speak for yourself.

I don’t regard other people as no more significant than insects, and my reasons are good enough for me: people have feelings and needs just as I do, and they hurt just as mine do; since I like to be free to speak my mind, keep my life and property intact, and socialize with others, I accord them the same privilege, and support the justice system which protects me from those who don’t. If that isn’t good enough for you, I’m glad you have religion to civilize you .

I stated that if we are essentially animals there is nothing (from a rational point of view) to distinguish us from other species so that it does not make sense to claim we have free will, moral responsibility, human rights or any more significance. I am simply expressing **my opinion **without questioning anyone’s sincerity or moral integrity. Your view is based on your belief in the rights to life, property, freedom of expression, equality and fraternity, all of which need justification if we are animals who in their natural state recognise only the law of the jungle. The issue is why we are essentially different in that respect.

 

[buffalo]

Not a false dilemma. If evolution happened by design or for no reason, it still happened in both cases; you are simply dividing one of my alternatives into two subsets; you are not creating a third alternative… In context, my post responded to one which to me implied that it could have happened “for” one group but not “for” another.

As usual, you are using other people’s statements as springboards for your own personal crusade, not addressing what they actually say.

I think there is a third option - IDvolution - that is:

**IDvolution **- God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.

Consider some imagery: God is an artist, the universe is His canvas, and He paints beauty, which comes to life.

 

[buffalo]

Over about 3 billion years.
No.
Yes, if changes in the environment or mutations require it.
It seems likely, but I can’t say for sure. I would proceed with caution there, however; we have already messed up several ecosystems through well-intentioned but short-sighted meddling.

One other piece of imagery:

Consider time is like a rolled up tape measure. God sees the entire tape at once. Man being on the tape has to look past the graduations. Consider Genesis 1 appears to be written from God’s perspective.

 

[tonyrey]

*A false dilemma! Either evolution **occurred ***

Does “we” include me?

 

[buffalo]

fMRI procedures have established the parts of the brain where activity is associated with many of the functions you mention. I have no data concerning their weight; the brain weighs about two pounds, I believe. I’m not sure phenomena like neurotransmission have measurable weight; the pull of gravity on them is probably too insignificant to measure with current instruments.

I hope my mind will recognize something outside its range every day. How else will I learn?
Just about everything I’ve posted on this thread was outside the range of my mind about three years ago.

Actually not. It can see areas of brain activity but neuronal activity is much harder to map and now we know that stuff is happening all over the brain.