Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

[Arandur]

To Arandur and Michaelo,

Who do you think you’re arguing with? What do you pretend is our disagreement with what Benedict said (as Ratzinger)?

bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

Pope Benedict XVI

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows:** It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.” **

It is this “astonishing conclusion” that does not follow, and is where Monod errs and goes beyond science, making a philosophical statement. This statement is the trespass of science beyond its limits into philosophy and theology that Pope Leo XII and the Catechism speak about, as I quoted you above.

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith.

Here we have Benedict speaking of the very limits of science and the purview of science that Michaelo and I have been explaining all along. And these limits of science and the subject matter of science that we’ve been talking about are the mainstream view of science.

But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error.

Again, wholly consistent with everything we’ve said. Even mutation obeys God’s physical and chemical laws; nothing is truly “random” as it is determined by the interaction of these natural forces and processes. Further, God knows all these variables and all these laws and created them purposely with intention.

Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.

Again, wholly consistent with what we’ve said. Where do you think we disagree?

Consider also this, from the same reference:
"All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the “project” of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.

But let us look a little closer, because here, too, the progress of thought in the last two decades helps us to grasp anew the inner unity of creation and evolution and of faith and reason. It was a particular characteristic of the 19th century to appreciate the historicity of all things and the fact that they came into existence. It perceived that things that we used to consider as unchanging and immutable were the product of a long process of becoming. This was true not only in the realm of the human but also in that of nature. It became evident that the universe was not something like a huge box into which everything was put in a finished state, but that it was comparable instead to a living, growing tree that gradually lifts its branches higher and higher to the sky. **This common view **was and is frequently interpreted in bizarre fashion, but as research advances it is becoming clearer how it is to be correctly understood."

Again, absolutely consistent with what we’ve been telling you all along. Evolution is compatible with the faith–get over it!

Once again, your problem is with Scientism, Existentialism, Positivism, and every other materialist philosophy that tries to justify itself by appealing to evolution. Evolution itself, as a limited natural empirical science, claims nothing in conflict with the faith; it makes no judgments about purposeness or purposelessness, intention or unintention. It only describes a process.

Now, again, what do you think of all the references to Catholic sources that I mentioned above? Do you disagree with my interpretations, or the numbered points that I think I’ve conclusively shown?

 

[buffalo]

Who do you think you’re arguing with? What do you pretend is our disagreement with what Benedict said (as Ratzinger)?

It is this “astonishing conclusion” that does not follow, and is where Monod errs and goes beyond science, making a philosophical statement. This statement is the trespass of science beyond its limits into philosophy and theology that Pope Leo XII and the Catechism speak about, as I quoted you above.

Here we have Benedict speaking of the very limits of science and the purview of science that Michaelo and I have been explaining all along. And these limits of science and the subject matter of science that we’ve been talking about are the mainstream view of science.

Again, wholly consistent with everything we’ve said. Even mutation obeys God’s physical and chemical laws; nothing is truly “random” as it is determined by the interaction of these natural forces and processes. Further, God knows all these variables and all these laws and created them purposely with intention.

Again, wholly consistent with what we’ve said. Where do you think we disagree?

Consider also this, from the same reference:
"All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the “project” of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.

But let us look a little closer, because here, too, the progress of thought in the last two decades helps us to grasp anew the inner unity of creation and evolution and of faith and reason. It was a particular characteristic of the 19th century to appreciate the historicity of all things and the fact that they came into existence. It perceived that things that we used to consider as unchanging and immutable were the product of a long process of becoming. This was true not only in the realm of the human but also in that of nature. It became evident that the universe was not something like a huge box into which everything was put in a finished state, but that it was comparable instead to a living, growing tree that gradually lifts its branches higher and higher to the sky. **This common view **was and is frequently interpreted in bizarre fashion, but as research advances it is becoming clearer how it is to be correctly understood."

Again, absolutely consistent with what we’ve been telling you all along. Evolution is compatible with the faith–get over it!

Once again, your problem is with Scientism, Existentialism, Positivism, and every other materialist philosophy that tries to justify itself by appealing to evolution. Evolution itself, as a limited natural empirical science, claims nothing in conflict with the faith; it makes no judgments about purposeness or purposelessness, intention or unintention. It only describes a process.

Now, again, what do you think of all the references to Catholic sources that I mentioned above? Do you disagree with my interpretations, or the numbered points that I think I’ve conclusively shown?

No - evolution with respect to the origins of man conflicts at these intersects:

Adam and Eve, Eve from Adam, bodily immortality, preternatural gifts, and no polygenism. Which form of evolution are the above compatible with?

 

[Arandur]

I will not talk to you again until tell me when you are going to stop beating your wife.

What? Oh, you never said anything about that topic?

Well, I’m still not going to discuss anything with you until you answer that question.

If you fail to answer it, you’re obviously dishonest and not interested in the truth.

… You’re free to conclude what you want, Arandur. For my part, I’m going to agree to disagree with you and leave it at that.

Thanks for the discussion.

You have dodged and dodged and dodged again.

In many, many posts I have explained the problem with your logic. You say that evolution must include the soul as a variable in its description of evolutionary processes, or else it is totally false. You keep claiming or at least implying by your language that because of the absence of this, you don’t accept anything described by evolution. Did you not say this? Do you want me to quote you?

I have shown how you must extend that thinking to the rest of science. But I’d be satisfied with you narrowly answering my question with regard to evolution alone. How does missing one variable make everything totally false? If you don’t think it does, SAY SO, but then tell me why you don’t accept what evolution says about how all the other variables work. For evolution doesn’t claim to explain everything; it is constantly being modified, as is all science.

Further, you have still not indicated whether you read any of my sources, or even the post where I quote relevant sections of sources. Have you done so and therefore do you accept my distinctions about philosophy and science, about the definition and limitations of science, that these are mainstream, and that these are explicitly stated (all contrary to your own claims)?

 

[Michaelo]

Arandur

Thank you for the great excerpts from CCC

You’re defending evolutionary theory as the appropriate means of explaining the observable, empirical evidence of the soul on the origin and development of human life.
Evolutionary theory can either:

1. Ignore the evidence that an immaterial force (the soul) affects human behavior, development, survival, movement, etc. (by free-will decisions which are not driven by materialistic causes)
2. Explain the observable evidence in materialistic terms (a direct conflict with Catholic teching and with the truth).

So if evolution “ignores” the soul’s physical effects, does this invalidate the theory’s many other facets as well? Arandur and I would both like an answer to this question.

 

[buffalo]

Arandur

Thank you for the great excerpts from CCC

So if evolution “ignores” the soul’s physical effects, does this invalidate the theory’s many other facets as well? Arandur and I would both like an answer to this question.

One question I would have is why are these effects ignored or not explored?

 

[reggieM]

So if evolution “ignores” the soul’s physical effects,

It does ignore them, so no need for the quotation marks. It either ignores immaterial effects on the development of human beings, or it claims those effects are materialistic.

does this invalidate the theory’s many other facets as well?

It invalidates the most significant claims about human evolution, certainly. It may also invalidate many other claims because there is no measurement of the effect of the human soul on other non-human populations (humans not moved by natural laws but by free-choice affect the survival and population of other species – as we can see today.)

If you will only feel comfortable by my telling you that organisms show slight changes over time due to adaptation (microevolution), then I will re-assure you on that point. Of course, nobody needed Charles Darwin to understand that point since the concept of slight organic changes over time has been around for at least the past 2,500 years.

Arandur and I would both like an answer to this question.

I hope that helps.

 

[Arandur]

You’re defending evolutionary theory as the appropriate means of explaining the observable, empirical evidence of the soul on the origin and development of human life.

No, he did not; no one here on this board has.

Evolutionary theory can either:

1. Ignore the evidence that an immaterial force (the soul) affects human behavior, development, survival, movement, etc. (by free-will decisions which are not driven by materialistic causes)

Just because it can’t explain it doesn’t mean it’s ignoring it. At one time, mental disorders were thought to be caused by spiritual maladies–either the result of sin or of demonic possession. Science studied those maladies and discovered another cause for many of them–chemical imbalances or developmental problems in the brain. Science examined physical evidence of something that could have been (and in some rare cases, is) caused by a malady of the soul, and, operating within the limits of its discipline, discovered a physical cause. If science continues to operate in such manner, it will discover any physical causes, but cannot describe anything directly caused by the spirit. Yet, if science had assumed an unproven spiritual cause, it would never have found the physical causes, nor been able to treat them, nor shown us the proper dignity of the persons involved.

1. Explain the observable evidence in materialistic terms (a direct conflict with Catholic teching and with the truth).

Wrong. As I’ve shown through quotes from popes and the Catechism and a nihil obstat Catholic Answers document, the limits of science are recognized by the Church without implying materialistic philosophies. The Church makes the distinction. Why don’t you?

I think we should just agree to disagree at this point and move on to other topics.

And there was the problem with your “agreeing to disagree.” You are claiming someone is saying something that they have clearly and explicitly said they are not claiming. That’s bearing false witness. You can’t just “agree to disagree” about that.

 

[Arandur]

One question I would have is why are these effects ignored or not explored?

They’re not ignored and are explored. I gave an example in the last post that might help clarify things. Another is this: we know that we have abstract thought, memory, imagination, self-awareness, capacity for reason, ability to make choices. Doctors are studying all of these things to see how and in what ways they are linked to the body–to the brain in particular. These are effects of the soul, but not necessarily wholly of the soul; the soul is intertwined with the body as we Catholics understand it, so it makes sense that the body plays some role in expressing these. So far, medical science has really only been able to discover areas of the brain that respond to these different functions. The source of the functions we know by faith to be the soul, but science, without being able to observe the soul directly, can only observe the body to study these things.

So you see, the effects of the soul ARE explored by science. Psychology and sociology attempt to do so more directly, but these more perniciously bleed over into philosophy. Evolution just takes what medical science has discovered about the body and the bodies of other organisms and tries to figure out how they formed, based on what else is known of ecology and environmental forces, etc.

 

[reggieM]

You say that evolution must include the soul as a variable in its description of evolutionary processes, or else it is totally false. You keep claiming or at least implying by your language that because of the absence of this, you don’t accept anything described by evolution. Did you not say this?

Yes, you’re correct. I did not say that. You can quote me where I said that “evolution must include the soul”. It just happened that you misunderstood my point for something like 10 posts in a row – then later, you finally understood it and agreed. Now again, in summary, you’re back to misunderstanding. Again, I did not say that “evolution must include the soul” – so if you want to parse my words, it would be best to get them right.

Additionally, when you said “did you not say this” – you used a singular. But you provided two statements, not one. Where did I say “I do not accept anything described by evolution”? You might as well go back and quote me so then we can play the game of parsing my words and I will say something and you will say “but you said!!!”

How does missing one variable make everything totally false?

I believe I explained that already. I will now waste my time and do it again.

When designing a new car that runs on electricity, the engineer missed only one variable – the engine.
The rest of the car could be fine - it just doesn’t have an engine. That made it a lot easier to increase leg-room for passengers though.

Now I’ll repeat your question:

• How does missing one variable make the design of that car totally false? *

…tell me why you don’t accept what evolution says about how all the other variables work.

How many errors would you like me to tolerate before I conclude that the theory is wrong?

For evolution doesn’t claim to explain everything; it is constantly being modified, as is all science.

Yes, modified means that it is wrong and has to be corrected. That sounds good to me.

Further, you have still not indicated whether you read any of my sources, or even the post where I quote relevant sections of sources. Have you done so and therefore do you accept my distinctions about philosophy and science, about the definition and limitations of science, that these are mainstream, and that these are explicitly stated (all contrary to your own claims)?

If I get a chance I will go back and do so more carefully and let you know what I think. Honestly, I find that you go on quite a lot more than necessary and I don’t have that much time to read through all the extraneous text.

For that reason, I like Michaelo’s posts much better – short, clear, direct, to the point.

 

[Arandur]

No - evolution with respect to the origins of man conflicts at these intersects:

Adam and Eve, Eve from Adam, bodily immortality, preternatural gifts, and no polygenism. Which form of evolution are the above compatible with?

First of all, Buffalo, you’re good at making distinctions, so please make this one: the whole of evolution can be totally correct with the one exception that it can’t fully explain the origin of full (ensouled) human being, since human beings have souls that science can’t measure or postulate about.

Humans are, of course, the exception, as we are taught by faith.

However, as I demonstrated, the Church accepts that evolution can be the process God used to produce the human body. Evolution says nothing of the soul, and here is where the Church explains the immediate, special creation of the soul.

Evolution actually could accept the origin of a new species based on a single couple; it is genetics that suggests that such an occurrence would be unlikely and unstable, and thus population drifts into new species would be more likely. But evolution and genetics has no frame of reference for the state of original justice caused by God’s initial ensoulment of man. Just as it can’t explain the resurrected body, so it can’t explain or study Adam and Eve from their initial creation and state of original justice. Just as science can’t explain Jesus’ divinity or his resurrection, our eventual bodily immortality, and preternatural gifts, so too does it not even attempt to with evolution. You suggest that evolution makes those claims when it does not.

While evolution can provide the most likely explanation for how God created our bodies, it will always lack the data to show the immediate point of generation of the human species. It can’t explain the point at which the soul was imbued into man. Evolution inherently acknowledges this. So evolution makes no definitive statement about our true origin as ensouled human beings, and thus is not in conflict with what you mentioned above.

 

[Arandur]

It does ignore them, so no need for the quotation marks. It either ignores immaterial effects on the development of human beings, or it claims those effects are materialistic.

See previous post.

It invalidates the most significant claims about human evolution, certainly.

Those being specifically what?

It may also invalidate many other claims because there is no measurement of the effect of the human soul on other non-human populations (humans not moved by natural laws but by free-choice affect the survival and population of other species – as we can see today.)

As I explained before, any human free choices just become environmental factors, acting on the evolution of species as any other environmental factor–whatever traits tend to be reproduced more will become more prevalent. This is most directly seen through animal husbandry/artificial selection. Human choices affect the reproduction of other organisms, but just the same as any other environmental factor would. All the mechanisms of genetics/evolution/ecology must remain in place and valid for artificial selection to even occur.

If you will only feel comfortable by my telling you that organisms show slight changes over time due to adaptation (microevolution), then I will re-assure you on that point. Of course, nobody needed Charles Darwin to understand that point since the concept of slight organic changes over time has been around for at least the past 2,500 years.

So you don’t agree with speciation? Or as Pope Benedict calls it, the “branching of the tree of life?” That he and the catechism ascribe to science the role of describing such speciation? (note, they implicitly accept speciation)

I hope that helps.

That essentially answers the question I was asking, just not very specifically or in much detail.

 

[Michaelo]

1. Explain the observable evidence in materialistic terms (a direct conflict with Catholic teching and with the truth).

Consider my musings on this point:

By pursuing a natural explanation for this evidence, science doesn’t usurp the soul’s position as the ultimate source of the effects but rather explains the physical mechanism by which the soul exerts its influence. So the evidence is neither ignored nor is the soul’s reality denied.

Is this more palatable?

 

[reggieM]

And there was the problem with your “agreeing to disagree.” You are claiming someone is saying something that they have clearly and explicitly said they are not claiming. That’s bearing false witness. You can’t just “agree to disagree” about that.

I am free to disagree about what you are claiming. That is not bearing false witness, but rather bearing true witness. I look at what you said and I disagree with it. That’s the nature of a debate like this.

 

[buffalo]

First of all, Buffalo, you’re good at making distinctions, so please make this one: the whole of evolution can be totally correct with the one exception that it can’t fully explain the origin of full (ensouled) human being, since human beings have souls that science can’t measure or postulate about.

Humans are, of course, the exception, as we are taught by faith.

However, as I demonstrated, the Church accepts that evolution can be the process God used to produce the human body. Evolution says nothing of the soul, and here is where the Church explains the immediate, special creation of the soul.

Evolution actually could accept the origin of a new species based on a single couple; it is genetics that suggests that such an occurrence would be unlikely and unstable, and thus population drifts into new species would be more likely. But evolution and genetics has no frame of reference for the state of original justice caused by God’s initial ensoulment of man. Just as it can’t explain the resurrected body, so it can’t explain or study Adam and Eve from their initial creation and state of original justice. Just as science can’t explain Jesus’ divinity or his resurrection, our eventual bodily immortality, and preternatural gifts, so too does it not even attempt to with evolution. You suggest that evolution makes those claims when it does not.

While evolution can provide the most likely explanation for how God created our bodies, it will always lack the data to show the immediate point of generation of the human species. It can’t explain the point at which the soul was imbued into man. Evolution inherently acknowledges this. So evolution makes no definitive statement about our true origin as ensouled human beings, and thus is not in conflict with what you mentioned above.

Except for this one distinction: Eve coming from Adam.

Either she did or she didn’t. If she did then the creation of Adam and Eve is supernatural and God inserted them fully created into the timeline despite what else may or may not have been happening at the time.

 

[edwest2]

Evolution happened, get over it. I believe I read that as part of a “book review” for a title on amazon.com that disagreed with evolution.

The Church is rightly concerned about theories of evolution where it touches on matters of the creation of the human person.

A) We are not haphazard mistakes. Stephen Jay Gould would disagree with that.

B) Adam and Eve were two individuals. They were not part of a group of hominids. They are clearly identified as our first parents. And, more importantly, as the source of Original Sin for which Christ died as a sacrifice to restore our relationship with God.

C) Eve was created by God from Adam’s side. Not symbolically, but actually. Jesus was not a symbol but an actual image of the Living God. After He rose from the dead, He asked Thomas to touch His wounds. He ate food.

D) The Church holds what it calls ‘the deposit of faith.’ These are facts given to all of us by Divine revelation.

Whatever is taught in Biology class about this subject, it cannot be seen as the complete picture. It is a warped and distorted picture, heavily influenced by materialism and mechanistic functionality. Human beings are more than form and function, and without each one of us being given the rest of the most important story - ever - we are unaware of our true identity as human beings. Literally.

And for those who would suggest that science talks about how, not why, just go to the journal Evolutionary Psychology, and look up articles on the internet that show scientists concluding that religious thoughts and/or god emanate from certain parts of the brain. In the final analysis, religion is defined as another survival mechanism cooked up by our genes while upgrading their neural connections - for no particular reason.

Science, like any tool, is meant to be used. So. What is science used for? What is evolution used for? Supposedly, evolution is useful in the statistical analysis of bacteria and viruses as they change. OK. But what about the study of dead things? That’s the part of evolution under contention here. Let’s review:

1. Adam and Eve were two hominids that (a) God chose to drop souls into, or (b) their neural connections evolved to the point where they could detect a god, or concept like god, or (c) a combination of a and b.
2. Humans are just another animal. Nothing special about us. Why, our evolutionary cousins, like monkeys, are animals.
3. There is no evidence of a god or gods or an ‘up there,’ so quit this religious nonsense and accept Science as the new god.
4. All of the evidence points to a completely natural, unaided evolutionary process.

A lawsuit was filed in California over an educational web site that quoted pastors assuring people that evolution is OK. Does not conflict with the faith. The suit charges that this site violates the idea that religion should not be injected in a public education setting.

And there you have it. Getting people to ‘just say yes’ to evolution is job one. Science? Pfft. The atheist today claims ownership of the words: reality, reason, science and evolution. Evolution is science is reason is reality.

God said to His people: preach the Gospel to all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

By pursuing a natural explanation for this evidence, science doesn’t usurp the soul’s position as the ultimate source of the effects but rather explains the physical mechanism by which the soul exerts its influence. So the evidence is neither ignored nor is the soul’s reality denied.

It’s sort of ok, but there are massive problems. Seeking a natural explanation for an immaterial cause is an error. We know that. But you’re right to point out, that’s exactly what evolutionary theory does (if it doesn’t ignore the empirical, observable effects of the soul). The “physical mechanism” that is affected by the soul is the body. That’s fine. But the body is not the source of the influence that changes the body – that is the soul.

If science said that the body moves itself through natural means alone - that would be false and a denial of free-will (a faculty of the soul, immaterial and not a product of natural laws).

If science says that free-will is a function of chemical operations - that is false and a denial of the immaterial nature of the soul.

If science says that human beings do not have free-will, that is false, etc.

If science says that human development can be explained without reference to free-will decisions, that is false because we can observe effects of free-will and see how it changes human life (people make decisions which are not driven by naturalistic mechanisms).

If science says that it will investigate the operations and faculties of the soul – then science is investigating immaterial causes.

How does the soul affect the human body? It cannot be as a result of mutations and natural selection. Where does evolutionary theory make a place for the influence of the soul on the body?

It doesn’t - we know that because I’ve asked the question 20 times (or so it seems).

An immaterial cause has an observable, empirically recognized effect on the body. Evolution cannot explain the origin of that cause since evolutionary theory only knows about natural causes like mutations and natural selection.

 

[Arandur]

Yes, you’re correct. I did not say that. You can quote me where I said that “evolution must include the soul”. It just happened that you misunderstood my point for something like 10 posts in a row – then later, you finally understood it and agreed. Now again, in summary, you’re back to misunderstanding. Again, I did not say that “evolution must include the soul” – so if you want to parse my words, it would be best to get them right.

You kept saying that evolution “ignores” the soul and is made false by ignoring it. It stands to reason that you are saying that evolution should not ignore the soul, and if it did not, it could be true. Thus, you did essentially say that “evolution must include the soul.”

Additionally, when you said “did you not say this” – you used a singular. But you provided two statements, not one. Where did I say “I do not accept anything described by evolution”? You might as well go back and quote me so then we can play the game of parsing my words and I will say something and you will say “but you said!!!”

I may later, if I find it’s not a waste of time. Over and over you said evolution was “false.” No qualifications. So I asked the question, adding in the qualifier “totally” or that you don’t accept “anything,” trying to get you to say what you accept and what you don’t accept and why.

I believe I explained that already. I will now waste my time and do it again.

When designing a new car that runs on electricity, the engineer missed only one variable – the engine.
The rest of the car could be fine - it just doesn’t have an engine. That made it a lot easier to increase leg-room for passengers though.

Now I’ll repeat your question:

• How does missing one variable make the design of that car totally false? *

I addressed this analogy. It’s too weak to be used against evolution. Evolution describes everything physical and mechanical. The spiritual component (OF HUMANS ONLY) is a variable not comprehensible by science, and yet we can describe quite a lot accurately without it, just as we can describe quite a lot in medicine, physics, and chemistry without it.

How many errors would you like me to tolerate before I conclude that the theory is wrong?

You can’t wholesale throw out a theory for not being able to describe one aspect of existence. Heliocentrism wasn’t wholly wrong for not knowing the precise distances or nature of gravity or orbits. Relativity theory has its insufficiencies that quantum mechanics and string theory try to explain, but each of those still accurately describes quite a lot. So, too, can evolution accurately explain quite a lot–particularly about non-human organisms.

I still don’t see how you can possibly have so much doubt about the accuracy of evolution at describing processes affecting non-human organisms.

Yes, modified means that it is wrong and has to be corrected. That sounds good to me.

You seem to want to take that as license to discount everything. Again, apply this to the rest of science. ALL scientific theories are constantly being refined, modified, improved. Will you throw them all out? Evolution is just one among many. Just like the others, many aspects of it are very accurate. As Greg P explained in an early post, quoting a source, the theory itself and the basic ideas behind it are not in question. It is only precise mechanisms that are being figured out and refined.

If I get a chance I will go back and do so more carefully and let you know what I think. Honestly, I find that you go on quite a lot more than necessary and I don’t have that much time to read through all the extraneous text. For that reason, I like Michaelo’s posts much better – short, clear, direct, to the point.

I’m sorry, brevity is not my gift. One of the reasons I write so much is to try to help you understand through careful and detailed explanations, analogies, and references to sources.

 

[reggieM]

Human choices affect the reproduction of other organisms, but just the same as any other environmental factor would.

Environmental factors are caused by natural processes - or as Darwin would say “fixed natural laws”. Free-choice decisions are not naturalistic or materialistic in origin.

To claim that human development is due to mutations and natural selection, ignores the influence of non-materialistic causes, which are not the product of “fixed natural laws” – since they are not materialistic at all.

If free-will was the same as environmental conditions, then free-will decisions by human beings would essentially be bound by natural laws. But humans can choose “against nature” and actually rise above it. Certainly, the Hebrew people changed their destiny by decisions not driven by natural laws, but by the spiritual nature of the soul. They moved from one place to another.

This is not like environment which is either random or a function of physical laws.

 

[Arandur]

I am free to disagree about what you are claiming. That is not bearing false witness, but rather bearing true witness. I look at what you said and I disagree with it. That’s the nature of a debate like this.

You can disagree ABOUT what I’m claiming, yes, in that you can disagree with conclusions and such.

What I just illustrated was how you are claiming that Michaelo and I are saying something that we are NOT saying. That’s not a disagreeing about the content of our claims. That’s bearing false witness about what we said. We have been very explicit and clear about many things. To say that we are claiming something we are not is lying. It’s not a matter of “agreeing to disagree.”

 

[reggieM]

I’m sorry, brevity is not my gift.

No need for an apology, but I’m glad you understand.