M
M0nkey
Guest
*]Evolutionary theories are insufficient to describe these ‘natural processes’.
*]Darwinism is an attempt to strip God completely out of the picture. The end result is materialism, and reductionism.
- Status
L
luvmykids
Guest
I guess I really don’t quite understand evolution…if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes? Some of us just never evolved?
E
edwest2
Guest
Oh boy. One crucial aspect of the evolution debate is: A) Man descended from pre-human hominids and we share common ancestry with apes or B) The first man and first woman were created by God. The Church teaches two individuals were our first parents, not a population.
All through history, God has sent signs to the world that shows He is God. It’s all through the Old Testament. But the people went on worshipping bulls, or the sun or some other idol. God would speak through the prophets to instruct the people. The people would ignore them, and do what they wanted. Then God would speak again, telling the people to turn from their idols or some bad event would occur. Guess what? The people mostly ignored the prophets.
Then God sent His Son for a very specific reason: Through one man, sin entered the world.
In recent history, God has sent Mary as His messenger to the world - Lourdes, Fatima, Mexico, Ireland. And what do the messages concern? They are about what God wants us to do. And what about Our Lady of Guadalupe? The local bishop did not believe the young man who sees her and asks for a physical sign. The boy returns to the bishop and opens his cloak. Out pours roses and on the cloak is a supernatural painting of Our Lady. The bishop is convinced.
God knows about our disbelief, and about our hearts, which are described as not just wicked but desperately wicked. Too often, we are drawn to sin like a moth to the flame, and yes, we do get burned. But out of love for us, he sends Mary. And he performs miracles through the prayers of the faithful to the saints.
God is a real, living God.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
You keep using the word natural as if God only kick started the process and it runs by itself. There is also the recent science of Evolutionary Psychology which tells us quite bluntly: we are biological robots. Somehow, our brain power kept getting “naturally” upgraded until we are so smart that now we think of ourselves as just highly evolved amoebas. Don’t you get it? Man is nothing more than a slightly more complicated snowflake. We are nothing. Robots pushed around by our genes, compelled to reproduce, perform adaptive behaviors and die. That’s it.
As a Catholic, I am against science worship or data worship. And people like Richard Dawkins use their standing in the scientific community to go on television to tell the people, I’m an expert, and, “We no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.” And when asked, “Didn’t God create man from the dust of the earth and breathe life into his nostrils?” The laconic Mr. Dawkins with his pleasant English accent, says “No.”
And atheists are putting signs on buses that read: Man created God. And why would they believe that? Because evolution tells them that religion was just another adaptive behavior obviously created by our genes when we were more ‘primitive’ as a survival mechanism. It’s one thing to believe that but quite another to act on that belief. And they are acting.
For the atheist, the soul is a throw away concept. “Sure, kid, Soul. Yeah, whatever. As long as you believe in evolution. That’s all that matters.” That’s what all these debates are about. And that includes people like Christopher Hitchens, who said: “If we knew then what we now know, would we ever have become religious?” Mr. Hitchens is quite clear. If we had this knowledge ‘back then,’ man would not have needed religion.
Yet, in the same article, Mr. Hitchens tells us that if he saw a miracle that he would doubt the evidence of his own eyes.
That is the world we live in: science worship along with the worship of the human mind, and by extension, our genes. Or, the full understanding that comes from the Catholic Church. Finally, even though Pope John Paul II said something about evolution, Pope Benedict added, “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
Peace,
Ed
A
Arandur
Guest
You have not even attempted to demonstrate this. Plus, no scientific theory completely and perfectly describes nature, because we do not have perfect knowledge. Evolution is the best explanation available, and it will continue to be modified to explain new discoveries. Such is the process of science.
“Darwinism” as a philosophy, yes. I am not talking about a philosophy. I am talking about a scientific theory.
A
Arandur
Guest
When you will understand the difference between science and religion? Between science and philosophy and theology?
The theory of relativity describes only a limited set of observed natural phenomena. The same is true of the Laws of Thermodynamics. If used to extrapolate things about the nature of God, they go beyond their valid bounds into mere speculation.
All of what you have described is evolution misapplied well beyond the bounds of what it describes. The theory itself is limited to observed natural phenomena and makes no statements outside that. To blame the theory for its misuse would be similar to blaming flat earth belief on religious belief.
E
edwest2
Guest
When will you understand that scientists have opened this “wonderful” door called evolutionary psychology that reduces all human beings to robots that do the bidding of our genes? That is what Evolutionary Scientists are describing.
Pick up the latest issue of Discover magazine. It will tell you more.
We, human beings, have been reduced to a natural phenomenon. Go that? If you go back to the so-called beginning, the common ancestor of all life on earth is a rock, supposedly followed by something like a virus or primitive cell that somehow, magically, continued to upgrade itself until one day, it sprouted arms and legs and became people.
That Is What Science Is Telling People Today. It’s published in popular magazines. And it will end up in Science classes under the name Evolutionary Psychology.
Science is purposely excluding the supernatural. The Pope knows that, which is why, though acknowledging science as science, he said that “we must have the audacity to say” we are not haphazard mistakes. Got that? He has been approached by scientists who basically told him, “Hey, look. This whole thing works without God.”
So, no. This is not a case of a few people misusing science. Right now, around the world, atheists are getting the word out. “Man created God.” And don’t believe for a microsecond that the Science classroom is going to be spared. It will be revealed to a bunch of kids that we are just a bunch of biological robots because Evolutionary Psychology tells us scientists so.
The atheists will love it.
epjournal.net/Archive/
Peace,
Ed
M
M0nkey
Guest
Precisely, evolution as it stands is insufficient. Science can do better. We can certainly go into the facts that debunk this theory. For starters, natural selection as the ONLY reductionist guiding principle.
This ‘scientific theory’ is deeply entrenched in philosophy. An impersonal view of the universe is hardly originated in Darwin. Scientific endeavor is never completely divorced from philosophy. In fact, science has it’s genesis in philosophy.
R
redneck22
Guest
Thanks for the link, but of the first two pages, 9 out of 36 images are linked to creation based web sites which I found most interesting. The problem with the fossil record is that it can never be evidence for evolution.
The fossil record is a record of death not life. You would need to establish two things to make an argument :- 1. Establish how many descendants those squashed creatures had. 2) Establish that they had different descendants to themselves.
Since the foundation of evolution is “differential reproduction” then the fossil record is no help. Animals have only ever shown to reproduce after their kind as Genesis foretells, no matter how long you think they have been reproducing. For all we know those animals could have all been buried in a massive world wide flood, afterall they are in sedimentary layers.
G
greg_b
Guest
How shallow can you be? Evolution usually takes more than just several human lifetimes (just for your information, the world was around waaay before you were born, it’s shocking, I know, but it’s true) And we have seen examples of evolution in our lifetime in places like the Pacific islands and South America with various birds. Oh, and you ever hear of this thing called a virus? They evolve almost every year!
G
greg_b
Guest
Typical Creationist paranoid rant
“Wah wah the whole scientific community is out to get me! They are all evil and hate my religion even though I don’t have any evidence to prove it!”
Conspiracy theory rants are clearly the signs of a desperate and deranged people who have no arguments left.
A
Arandur
Guest
I understand that some psychologists have chosen to pursue the theory of evolutionary psychology, and what conclusions they are making from it. It is irrelevant, however, to the biological theory of evolution applied to the development of life forms.
You really need to realize the distinctions of the different thought processes and theories out there. Evolutionary psychology is different from biological evolution (or “microevolution,” as some call it, though they typically limit it too much by such definition). Macroevolution or “Darwinism” as a philosophy (as defined as a no-cause universe, extrapolating a lack of supernatural existence when there is no basis for such an extrapolation) is different from biological evolution. Social Darwinism is different from biological evolution.
These philosophies go beyond the scientific theory, just as other disciplines can be abused to go beyond the truth that they branch off from.
Like evolutionary psychology, the truth of predestination has been abused and exaggerated to posit that mankind has no free will.
Like Social Darwinism and Nietzschism, a belief in the “elect” or the chosen people of God has been abused to make some people better or worth more than others.
Like Macroevolution and Darwinism, Dualism mistakes the origins of the universe by misinterpreting the problem of evil and the existence of oppositions and suggesting that evil must be equal to good.
Another example would be how the truth that Jesus is human and Jesus is divine spawned so much controversy and heresy in the early time of the Chuch, with Arians exaggerating his humanity at the expense of his divinity, and Gnostics refusing his humanity in favor of divinity (because they also exaggerated the observation of the weakness and concupiscence of the flesh to say that flesh is evil).
Then you have religious truths misinterpreted and abused by being pulled into the realm of describing nature and natural laws and processes. In this category would be an insistence on a Firmament, an underground Sheol, a flat earth, the earth as center of the universe, the moon as a source of light, etc.
So, too, is evolution limited to its own sphere and abused when taken outside of its sphere. You continually bring up the abuses of evolution and use them to condemn evolution itself, yet you have presented no argument suggesting that the limited scientific theory of evolution is untrue.
We’re talking about a study of and search for truth, which science is. The Church is not threatened by that. An errant theory extrapolating to what it cannot define is just that. We do not judge the Church for errant doctrines and the misuse of its teachings. Why should you judge a scientific theory on its misuse?
You really have very little understanding of evolution if you think this is a description of what it says.
And that is where they err, because they forget Causes, and they have no data on God. Not all scientists make this mistake.
A
Arandur
Guest
As you seem to define it, natural selection is not the only reductionist guiding principle.
What scientific theory out there right now is better than evolutionary theory?
Yes, but it is philosophy that limits science to the study only of observable natural phenomena.
Do you condemn all of “scientific theory?” The scientific method? All other natural laws and theories?
A
Arandur
Guest
You misunderstand evolution if you think it suggests that one organism gives birth to a different species. The lines of descent are unbroken. They merely diverge to the point where they no longer interbreed with another branch of the family tree, or are incapable of doing so. This can only happen if the populations are genetically isolated to some degree. Further, a species can change in traits and form over time as it adapts to its environment, such that, when compared with ancestors, it will appear different and is often classified as a different species if the differences are sufficient.
M
M0nkey
Guest
Oh brother. Science IS the study of natural phenomena. That’s how it’s defined by the scientific method. It’s not speculation or wishful thinking, but real empirical evidence that leads to new discoveries. I think many Darwinist misunderstand science for science fiction.
Actually, what I’ve read in these instances are cases where they discovered new species of birds. If you think about it, there is a plethora of species and not all of them have been found (this is mostly the task of birders), so you can’t know for sure if it’s a new discovery or evolution.
Yes, but how many times has that been shown in nature? First they said it was too slow for observation, now they are saying is too quick. The bottom line is speciation can only split certain kinds of species while more complex systems seem to just stay the same.
E
edwest2
Guest
You have apparently missed the numerous debates that have gone on here about this subject. If it was just about data then things would go pretty much like this:
Here is the data for evolution. Have a nice day. Simple and to the point. Take it or leave it.
I wish. Instead, it goes like this:
- I’m a scientist and according to scientific data, your Holy Book is wrong, here, here and here. Science is right!
- Ignorance. That’s what I’m fighting. What is wrong with you Catholics who don’t accept evolution? If you only understood it then you would accept it. And I will continue to post and post and post until you do.
- Evolution is a fact. We can’t prove it but we’ve got evidence.
- Evolution works entirely by itself. No supernatural intervention required.
- Why can’t you accept evolution? Pope John Paul II said something nice about it and Pope Benedict did too.
They might even go so far as acknowledging the soul but so what? The invisible man in the sky and the invisible soul are both throw away concepts. Easy to discard once people agree that evolution is a sound theory.
And, of course, if it were just about the science then people would be done. But, no. They post over and over and over again. Do you accept evolution now? How about now? How about now? The pattern is always the same. Don’t you understand evolution? Cause if you understood it then you would accept it. Oh I understand it alright. That’s not the point. It’s not the Church’s point either.
Then we get into gravity. Their favorite ploy. We know more about evolution than we do about gravity. Really? Satellites get up into space just fine and are designed to do certain things regarding gravity so they don’t fall back to earth. We understand gravity just fine. We understand enough about how it works to send probes into space.
So, what’s left? Church teaching. The version of evolution being marketed here is purely mechanical. It leaves nothing to God. Zip. And I’m supposed to believe that something with gills g r a d u a l l y turned into something with lungs. For millions of years, babies with gills. Then suddenly, what? Half a lung and half a gill? Of three quarters gill and one quarter lung?
Viruses. They have the built-in ability to change their outer protein coat. It’s bult in. And even though a change occurs, they always remain viruses. Bacteria. Lateral gene transfer, even between species. Another built-in ability. And the bacteria remain bacteria.
Peace,
Ed
G
greg_b
Guest
Please just leave. You still have no idea how and what evolution is and how it works. Your ignorance is a slap in the face of serious Catholic scientists who have spent years helping us understand real evolution, not your nonsense version of it.
M
M0nkey
Guest
Actually, many scientists are now disputing whether random mutations and natural selection can account for complexity (Michael Behe is a good example of a Catholic scientist). Needless to say, many people are not buying it. You seem to think is just an “ignorant slap in the face” but it’s not. Let’s face it, the media has done a good job at indoctrinating the masses.
A
Arandur
Guest
I don’t understand what you’re getting at here. I was saying that evolutionary theory describes observed phenomena better than any other theory currently available in biological science. It has many uncertainties and deficiencies, like most theories, but it is the best available. Right now, its more the details in specific areas that are being worked out. The central background theory is the best support for understanding the details of how nature works.
A scientific discussion of the data (such as occurs constantly in the research community) is not simple and to the point, but endless and meticulous. What I was asking for in the context of this discussion was evidence that there is a theory available that better describes observed phenomena. To judge whether any such claim is accurate, we’d need to compare and contrast how the new one was better based on the data.
I don’t see where we disagree on this. I agree with the Church that any attempt to go beyond science to try to disprove God’s existence is errant. It simply does not follow that one can make definitive conclusions about supernatural things from natural ones. So removing God from consideration is a logical fallacy. Recognizing God’s role in creation and then trying to learn about and describe that creation and how it works, that’s the proper role of science, and evolution can exist accurately within that context.
We can measure gravity and we understand what it does, but we don’t know how it works, where the force comes from, how to manipulate it. That said, I tend to agree with you that the analogy is improper and untrue. Gravity is fairly simple in comparison to evolution, and much more measurable and predictable.
When you say “here,” do you mean in this forum, or in the general culture? Particularly in this forum, that statement is erroneous. I have been describing a “version of evolution” that very much includes God and is in fact impossible without Him. And just looking at the statistics (over 80% monotheists in this country, and 40-70% of people in the country believing in evolution, depending on the measure), most people in our culture also don’t believe that evolution disproves the existence of God.
There is no “suddenly” for a population, and rarely for an individual.
We identify new species of bacteria by significant changes to their genetic structure through those gene swaps and recombination, however. It’s true that we haven’t observed single cell organisms becoming multi-cell–except through symbiosis or parasitism. We have seen them operate in “communities,” IIRC. So yes, the leap from single cell to multi-cell has not been observed. It has been inferred from relationships that are similar and are conceivable predecessors, and from existent trace evidences (such as mitochondria in eukaryotic cells).
I just don’t see why there’s such a witch-hunt after evolution and those who see it as most likely, when it is understood in the proper context (limited to science and as a creation of God).
So what if God’s “let there be light” manifested as a Big Bang, creating energy and matter in the universe?
So what if the “days” of Genesis took a really long time, weren’t literal “days” as we know them, and happened a little bit out of reported order? The message of God’s creation and the wonder and power of it is the same regardless of how the reporters shuffle the deck, and Day Four’s creation of distinct lights was God creating stars, giving birth to our Sun, forming the Moon from a collision with a sister planetoid?
So what if God’s method of separating the waters was the formation of an atmosphere through the boiling of various matter on the surface of the earth, retained by earth’s gravity and magnetosphere?
So what if God’s method creating dry ground on earth was volcanism and tectonic geology?
So what if God’s method of creating plants was to start with even a “primordial soup,” gradual formation of amino acids and DNA predecessors, prokaryotic primary producers, single cell organisms becoming dependent on each other and developing into multi-cell in whatever way He chose for that to happen, to eventually bring forth every manner of plant form, carrying on creation endlessly through evolutionary processes?
So what if God’s method of creating fish and birds and all manner of animals was similar?
So what if God chose one of those physical forms and remade it in His image, imbuing it with a soul, dignifying it as His child, giving it dominion and free will, and making a partner for it to give birth to the human race? That’s similar to taking clay and remaking it; in fact, evolution fits very nicely with the idea that man was formed from clay or dust and indeed returns to it.
Evolution maps a process that God used. It would be nothing, would not exist, had God not made and used that process. It cannot explain how that process came to be or why, and it certainly cannot explain the many ways in which God interacts with us, His children, nor legitimately deny them.
B
buffalo
Guest
The top biologists are working on the EES. The problem is saltations.
- Status