Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

[buffalo]

Possibly. I think what I elaborated earlier about everything being subjective to God and God being the fixed reference point for us (everything by use perceived relatively) allows what you’re suggesting as a “frame of reference thing.” But that seems to me too much like the “deceiver God” making things to just look old.

Although, if what you really mean by the “frame of reference thing” is that to God, since He can see all of Time at once, all of His creation does or can seem “instantaneous” to Him. But God, I think, can also experience time if He wants to, so He could see it from both perspectives (and certainly did when He became one of us).

I reject the deceiver God idea as bogus. He has no obligation to share with us everything.

What color is a banana?

 

[Arandur]

Which of our “brothers” then would be without original sin and how do we know?

Two possibilities are immediately apparent to me: in one all sinned, just as those among the Israelites who did not take part in idolatry (surely some adults, in addition to children and infants) were communally guilty and punished because of the actions of the ones who did; and/or the sin of disobedience actually was committed as a group, all together, whether it was all of them eating of the fruit or not. Regardless, all would have been related, of the same “generation,” and thus it is still true that we contract Original Sin by being descendants, as well as just by sharing the same humanity.

 

[Arandur]

I reject the deceiver God idea as bogus. He has no obligation to share with us everything.

What color is a banana?

We call the banana “yellow.” We even can study the pigments which give it color. We give units of measurement to time. We observe things that indicate consistently measurable velocities and passages of time. Why would those observations be wrong?

 

[buffalo]

We call the banana “yellow.” We even can study the pigments which give it color. We give units of measurement to time. We observe things that indicate consistently measurable velocities and passages of time. Why would those observations be wrong?

Under UV light the banana glows blue. Does this indicate a deceiver God?

 

[edwest2]

I’m glad we’re understanding each other better and agreeing.

I think God could have dropped Adam and Eve in supernaturally, sure. I think doing so would have been inconsistent with how He has done other things in the physical world, and while that doesn’t rule it out, I’m not troubled by the idea that man was made physically through the same processes. The supernatural part was the creation of the human soul in God’s image and likeness, and God taking this human physical form He had sculpted (like clay!) over time and making giving it true life as His children, Adam and Eve. He did that at some point in time, in our prehistory.

While I accept a singular Adam and Eve and don’t have a problem with it theologically or scientifically, I have been meaning to study more what the Church says about that (as opposed to a population) and why, because it is my understanding that “Adam” in Hebrew meant “man” as in “mankind.” Thus the language seems to allow a group. So does the nature of Original Sin as communal, and tribal culpability as seen through Israelite history. So I’m not sure why the Church doesn’t see this as another “both/and” situation, or if it really does rule out the latter possibility.

The Bible us tells that through one man sin entered the world. One man.

See Romans 5:12.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Arandur]

Under UV light the banana glows blue. Does this indicate a deceiver God?

That indicates another property of pigment and light. It does not negate the yellow color under the normal spectrum of visible light.

The analogy to time does not work. If there is a concordance of many sources of data that correspondingly indicate a certain passage of time, but that time has not in fact passed, something must explain the lack of actual passage of time. The only two explanations I have heard are that 1. God made these things look like a lot of time had passed, when it hadn’t (an intentional decision; a deceiver God); or 2. The apparent passage of time has decelerated vastly over time.

1. is problematic on several levels.
   A. It is not consistent with the fact that nature appears to operate consistently by fixed laws.
   B. It is not consistent with how we do see time change in relativity theory.
   C. The deceleration of time has not been observed, meaning that it must have stopped decelerating, again breaking the consistency of natural laws.
   This also ultimately implies a deceiver God, one who makes nature appear as if it operates by constants and laws when it does not, one who is really, as in scenario 1, just making it appear as if the universe were older.

You say that you don’t think God is obligated to reveal anything to us. True. But consider the implications of that applied to nature and its study (science). If observation of nature cannot be relied upon–that’s what it means if nature does not work by consistent principles–then all study of nature in science is ultimately worthless. We can derive no reliable knowledge from it, for there is nothing to rely upon (it is changing unknowably).

Do you really believe that scientific knowledge is worthless? That God made nature such that we can’t discover anything true about it or Him?

 

[buffalo]

That indicates another property of pigment and light. It does not negate the yellow color under the normal spectrum of visible light.

The analogy to time does not work. If there is a concordance of many sources of data that correspondingly indicate a certain passage of time, but that time has not in fact passed, something must explain the lack of actual passage of time. The only two explanations I have heard are that 1. God made these things look like a lot of time had passed, when it hadn’t (an intentional decision; a deceiver God); or 2. The apparent passage of time has decelerated vastly over time.

1. is problematic on several levels.
   A. It is not consistent with the fact that nature appears to operate consistently by fixed laws.
   B. It is not consistent with how we do see time change in relativity theory.
   C. The deceleration of time has not been observed, meaning that it must have stopped decelerating, again breaking the consistency of natural laws.
   This also ultimately implies a deceiver God, one who makes nature appear as if it operates by constants and laws when it does not, one who is really, as in scenario 1, just making it appear as if the universe were older.

You say that you don’t think God is obligated to reveal anything to us. True. But consider the implications of that applied to nature and its study (science). If observation of nature cannot be relied upon–that’s what it means if nature does not work by consistent principles–then all study of nature in science is ultimately worthless. We can derive no reliable knowledge from it, for there is nothing to rely upon (it is changing unknowably).

Do you really believe that scientific knowledge is worthless? That God made nature such that we can’t discover anything true about it or Him?

Perhaps the curve is not linear and has now flattened out. According to Big Bang theory a lot was happening very quickly.

Another example. If you walk down the beach and you see two left footprints in the sand for as far as you can see what conclusions can you draw? Does this imply a deceiver was at work?

 

[Arandur]

The Bible us tells that through one man sin entered the world. One man.

See Romans 5:12.

Peace,
Ed

Either of the alternative scenarios I presented accommodate that. The first option was communal sin through common humanity with one individual beginning it. The second option was communal participation at once in the sin, though it could have been instigated or initiated by one man.

Further, I don’t think you can so narrowly interpret Romans 5:12. Another passage later (I forget where) cites Eve as the first transgressor, and indeed, under most interpretations, the first sin in time would have been hers. Yet we attribute it to Adam.

 

[Arandur]

Perhaps the curve is not linear and has now flattened out. According to Big Bang theory a lot was happening very quickly.

If there is observable evidence of a change in the passage of time, that’s fine. Suggesting that we can’t observe it runs contrary to the rest of our observation of nature’s consistency in the ways I described before, and results in a deceiver God.

Another example. If you walk down the beach and you see two left footprints in the sand for as far as you can see what conclusions can you draw? Does this imply a deceiver was at work?

We’ve covered this before. A scientist would investigate the cause. The cause should be observable. It is. The waves (acting with remarkable precision), or a left-footed hopper, or someone who deliberately cleared away their prints.

Deception comes in only if it is posited that normal operation of nature is not “normal;” if nature’s laws cannot be observed and/or it does not follow its own laws. Attributing apparent age that is not true, with no way of accounting for that apparent age within the realm of natural observation, is deception built into nature.

 

[buffalo]

If there is observable evidence of a change in the passage of time, that’s fine. Suggesting that we can’t observe it runs contrary to the rest of our observation of nature’s consistency in the ways I described before, and results in a deceiver God.

We’ve covered this before. A scientist would investigate the cause. The cause should be observable. It is. The waves (acting with remarkable precision), or a left-footed hopper, or someone who deliberately cleared away their prints.

Deception comes in only if it is posited that normal operation of nature is not “normal;” if nature’s laws cannot be observed and/or it does not follow its own laws. Attributing apparent age that is not true, with no way of accounting for that apparent age within the realm of natural observation, is deception built into nature.

It doesn’t stand. Even if the walker erased his own footprints does not mean he was trying to deceive you. His intent could have been different.

Natures laws do not have to be constant. We are not even sure they are the same in different parts of the universe. Perhaps Gods laws are moving towards the “apex” and are now more finely constrained and tuned. None of this implies a deceiver.

What we think “apparently” happened way back when is built on assumptions that could be different next week. If that happens we have only been deceiving ourselves.

 

[reggieM]

Yes, I believe that. I thought that’s what I’ve been saying in almost every post for several pages now.
I’ve been explaining in various ways how I think that can be, and how it makes evolution possible. God designed it.

Where do you think I’m wrong? Or where do you think we don’t agree?

Here’s the issue …

The effects of beauty and order we see in nature and the universe are detectable and they cannot be the result of an unintelligent process alone – an Intelligent Designer is necessary. Therefore, I think you believe that God is the intelligent designer, and that His design can be observed in nature.

First of all, you see order in the universe that cannot be the result of an unintelligent process. That is what Dr. Kreeft said, that is what I agree with.
But I cannot see how you could agree with that.

Evolution is the supposed cause of all of the diversity and variety in biological nature.
Evolution is an unintelligent, unconscious process. It works with random mutations, random environmental effects and a process of elimination.

Evolution shows the opposite of design. It shows only what natural laws produce.

When you see a pile of rocks at the bottom of a hill after an avalanche, what “order and design” do you detect?

If you detect order and design in nature and infer a Designer, then this cannot come from unintelligent physical laws. Evolution itself is not governed by laws – as you said earlier, it is not predictable because it relies on chance, accidental occurences which are not evidence of order and design.

You must be able to distinguish between order and disorder to be able to detect the presence of an intelligent designer at work. How do you distinguish that? If you would say that every accidental thing that happens is evidence of “order” then there is no distinction.

The idea of “design” has to mean something other than the result of an accidental, natural process.

When a rock rolls down a hill due to gravity, that is not evidence of a designed event but of a event governed by physical law.

If evolution occurs by physical law, just like a rock rolling down the hill, then there is no evidence of design there.

 

[edwest2]

It’s interesting when revealed Biblical truth is shown to be in opposition to scientific interpretation, it’s the Bible that is called into question and not the interpretation made by science.

The Pope said in his Regensburg Homily that a random and natural evolutionary process is meaningless. Some here are so concerned that the science baby gets thrown out with the bath water while ignoring how easy it is to toss God out of the discussion.

A Creative Reason put it all together, not some random mutation and natural selection. God knew what Adam would look like.

Then, not because of God’s Word, but because of science – it becomes “you’re making science worthless!” No. But too often, people believe God becomes needless to the process. The evolution engine that starts itself, operates itself and spits out life forms ‘naturally.’ God? Pfft! Show me God in any Biology textbook or scientific paper.

Or, “I don’t believe in a deceiver God.” Once again, revealed truth is to blame, not science. Science knows what it’s talking about. The fault must be in the Bible.

So, make up your mind. God was needed in a practical way in some sort of process or He wasn’t. Currently, the schools are teaching a self-starting, self sustaining mechanical process that takes chemicals and makes men. And if you add Stephen Gould to the mix, it, the process, might have turned us all into reptile men had not a certain random mutation occurred. Got that? You’re going to have to pick one.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Arandur]

It doesn’t stand. Even if the walker erased his own footprints does not mean he was trying to deceive you. His intent could have been different.

You misunderstood me. I didn’t say the walker erasing his footprints meant he was trying to deceive. I said that that possibility is discoverable and explainable within the physical realm. If there is no physically-observable or explainable cause for something that occurs in the physical world, then it must have a supernatural cause. The problem with your argument is that you require many, many instances in nature to have and continue to be occurring by supernatural intervention suspending the laws of nature. Why did God even create laws of nature if He were to never follow them? Can we even say there ARE laws of nature if they are not reliable? I don’t think so. The appearance that there are laws of nature if there are not is a deception. It is like proposing an Eastern view of the world as an illusion.

Natures laws do not have to be constant. We are not even sure they are the same in different parts of the universe. Perhaps Gods laws are moving towards the “apex” and are now more finely constrained and tuned. None of this implies a deceiver.

If natural laws are not constant, their change must be observable and explainable by interaction with other natural effects. If they are not, then we cannot rely on any observation of nature to be consistent or reliable.

Besides, I thought you were saying that you’d rather have God set everything in place correctly the first time. Progressively fine-tuning natural laws? That implies they didn’t work right the first time.

Think of it this way. What you’re saying, essentially, is that the law of gravity could change at any moment, with no natural cause. I would agree that God has the power to do so, to intervene and suspend His own natural laws. I would disagree that, given all that He has shown us of His constancy and His design, He would no more change such a natural process than He would violate your free will.

What we think “apparently” happened way back when is built on assumptions that could be different next week. If that happens we have only been deceiving ourselves.

You’re making too many assumptions. Stick with the simple things, first. Evidence of age comes from many sources, all corroborating: optics (red shift in starlight), radioactive decay, rates of erosion, rates of chemical reactions, rates of deposition of geological layers, placement of different fossil species in deeper geological formations, mathematical traces of genetic change, the effects of pressure on ice and rock formations, evidence of differences in atmospheric composition captured in ice formations, evidence of how and at what rates and conditions oil and gas deposits are formed, rates of petrification, calculations of nuclear reactions in astronomical events, astronomical distances and speeds, etc.

It would take ALL of these things–which all support each other–to be WRONG in order for apparent age to be wrong. It would take ALL of these things fundamentally changing in form and structure to be “different next week.” In other words, the entire natural world would basically have to cease to function in any way we have observed it functioning and become something entirely different. Or, alternately, in order for apparent age to have been accelerated previously, it would have to have happened and be detectable in ALL of these areas.

What you are asking is that we suspend virtually all we know of nature, all we know of the constancy of God, in order to fit your preference that God made a young earth. You’re asking for all of these evidences in the natural world to be either vastly misunderstood by millions of scientists over generations of time–thus greatly questioning the ability of us to know anything at all scientifically–or to not actually be as consistent and constant as they seem to be, but rather to have changed over time in an undetectable way.

I think that disrespects God. I think God wants us to be able to learn of Him through nature, that He was powerful enough and intelligent enough to make a nature that functions well and correctly and consistently so that we could discover Him and rely on what we were observing, to know that He is FAITHFUL and unchanging.

A faithful God does not change all the laws by which we live.

Do you see why I think rejecting God’s revelation through science is so dangerous to faith in God? To reject that part of God’s revelation, you must contradict many things that we know about God by faith. A God who has not created a discoverable, reliable nature is a faithless, changing God who does not mean to reveal Himself through creation.

 

[Arandur]

Here’s the issue …

The effects of beauty and order we see in nature and the universe are detectable and they cannot be the result of an unintelligent process alone – an Intelligent Designer is necessary. Therefore, I think you believe that God is the intelligent designer, and that His design can be observed in nature.

First of all, you see order in the universe that cannot be the result of an unintelligent process. That is what Dr. Kreeft said, that is what I agree with.
**But I cannot see how you could agree with that. **

Wow, I can’t comprehend how you missed it. Can I ask you to please read my posts more slowly and carefully. You are claiming for me a position that I have explicitly spoken against in almost every single post for the past several pages!

Evolution is the supposed cause of all of the diversity and variety in biological nature.

WRONG. Only in philosophies hiding behind evolution that posit nature without a God and forget first causes!
The theory itself does not suggest/exclude a first cause! It only describes a process.

Evolution is an unintelligent, unconscious process. It works with random mutations, random environmental effects and a process of elimination.

Only partly right. Evolution is a natural process, yes, just like every other observed natural law and principle. Do you object to all of those?
Evolution does involve random mutations, but also much less random inheritance and recombination (those are actually much more important). I think here you’re using the non-scientific definition of “random” I referred to earlier. “Random” does not mean unknowable or unpredictable. It describes a distribution. Environmental effects, indeed even mutations and thus all of evolution, is influenced by the measurable, detectable, knowable, reliable laws and forces of nature. Evolution is also not about “elimination.” It is about reproduction. It is a life-oriented process. Those organisms that reproduce influence their species to the extent that they and their offspring continue to reproduce.

Evolution shows the opposite of design. It shows only what natural laws produce.

And where did those natural laws come from? All of them had to have a first cause, an author. All of them were thus designed. Evolution is a natural process, produced by all the interacting laws. It was therefore designed.

When you see a pile of rocks at the bottom of a hill after an avalanche, what “order and design” do you detect?

I see physics working in a vast array of interactions of matter and energy, producing effects all consistent with knowable and reliable laws of nature. If we knew all the details about the composition of the mountain, the rocks, the mountainside, the air and weather that day, we could predict exactly where each rock would land. God knows all that; He designed it. We can design simpler computer programs that operate by the laws of physics and simulate something very similar. Because all those laws of nature are reliable and work in harmony–they were designed that way.

[quore]
If you detect order and design in nature and infer a Designer, then this cannot come from unintelligent physical laws.
What do you mean by using “unintelligent” in this context? It makes no sense to me. Are you suggesting that Gravity is intelligent? Free-willed? Are the laws of thermodynamics intelligent? No. But they work in measurable, knowable, consistent ways, and interact to produce complex effects. They were designed to do so.

Evolution itself is not governed by laws – as you said earlier, it is not predictable because it relies on chance, accidental occurences which are not evidence of order and design.

Whoa, where did I say that? Evolution is absolutely governed by laws–all the other laws of physics. It is indeed predictable because it does not rely on the sort of unknowable “chance” that you propose. We can predict the effects of environment on a species. We can look back at species similarities and what we know of the environment in times past and trace predictions backwards that are consistent with evolution. The example I gave of the genetic chromosomal makeup of humans and apes involves predictions.

Chaos theory works against your view of “order and design.” Chaos is or can bring about order. Chaos is only “chaos” because we cannot comprehend the complexity of it. God can. What we call “chaos” is order to God, working beyond our comprehension.

Nature is a self-organizing system. We can design our own self-organizing systems. Self-organizing systems by definition create order. Yet they use seemingly “random” occurrences as well as “orderly” interactions and feedbacks to create order. This is evidence of beautiful harmony and design.

You seem to hate disorder and think that it cannot be the result of design, yet what would you call nature, then, even without evolution? It’s got lots of “disorder” in the form of “accidental occurrences.”

You must be able to distinguish between order and disorder to be able to detect the presence of an intelligent designer at work. How do you distinguish that? If you would say that every accidental thing that happens is evidence of “order” then there is no distinction.

No, evidence of orderly outcomes of “accidental” occurrences indicates order, a self-organizing system, the result of design.

 

[Arandur]

The idea of “design” has to mean something other than the result of an accidental, natural process.

There is no undesigned natural process; it was all intended, and thus none was “accidental” in the sense that you seem to be referring to. Again, you forget first causes.

When a rock rolls down a hill due to gravity, that is not evidence of a designed event but of a event governed by physical law.

Are you telling me that rocks don’t roll down hills? Or that there is no design in nature? Those are the only two possibilities in your example.
That physical law was designed. The action of the rock is governed, then, by design.

If evolution occurs by physical law, just like a rock rolling down the hill, then there is no evidence of design there.

See above.

Man, this is frustrating.

 

[edwest2]

God revealed Himself in nature through Jesus Christ. Jesus showed what God can do: raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, give sight to the blind, turn water to wine, calm a storm by His word.

The question should not be: How does God fit into science but how does science compare to revealed truth?

“Any view of evolution that assumes on principle that biological nature is entirely governed by chance and blind laws must be in error.”

From the Catholic newspaper, Our Sunday Visitor, dated April 19, 2009. The author is Benjamin Wiker.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

A few words about rocks.

First, if a group of rocks was part of a hill and wind and rain dislodged them, causing them to fall in a pile, there is no design there.

Specified complexity: I find a triangular rock. I examine it. It is not perfectly triangular and there are no marks on it except for a ragged break line along one edge. It’s just a triangular rock.

Then I find another triangular rock. It has specific and complex features. It is more closely triangular. There are regular chip marks along two edges that are quite uniform. As an archaeologist, I can safely conclude that this is not just a rock. It was fashioned by an intelligence and is now an arrowhead.

Unfortunately, the outside world does not want to hear this. Too many do not want to hear about an intelligence because it might cause people to think of the God word.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Arandur]

Come on, guys (mainly Ed, but to some extent all three of you)! I thought we were making some progress, now it seems like you haven’t read a word I wrote in the past several pages!

Seriously, if you won’t do me the basic courtesy of reading what I write and representing it honestly, of responding directly to the points I make and not dodging my questions or avoiding even attributing things to me, why should I continue to talk to you? You’re certainly not showing me any respect.

I try to quote what you guys say and even interrupt the quotes to respond directly to a point or argument you have made, or a question you have asked. I try to respond to everything you say.

I very, very seldom get such respect from you. You refuse to address my arguments directly–even often not even attributing my words to me but dodging them with third person statements even when you’re clearly trying to address me. I rarely ask a rhetorical question, and yet I bet I could count on one hand the number of questions any of you have directly answered.

Frankly, I’m getting sick of having a conversation with such discourteous or dishonest people who are unwilling or unable to directly engage in logical argument.

Now, let me address one of the posts that sparked this overdue calling out:

It’s interesting when revealed Biblical truth is shown to be in opposition to scientific interpretation, it’s the Bible that is called into question and not the interpretation made by science.

Where have I done this? I have instead made many arguments showing how the avenue of attack you are using against evolution actually attacks Biblical truth and Church teaching. I’m not sure you bothered to respond to any of those arguments to try to refute them. I have, through those arguments and analogies, shown that it is YOU who are actually calling Biblical truth into question, not me.

Also, where have I ever called the Bible into question? The only thing that comes close that I can recall is your personal interpretation of Romans 5:12. I explained how other interpretations were still consistent, referring to the context of other Scripture regarding Eve.

The Pope said in his Regensburg Homily that a random and natural evolutionary process is meaningless. Some here are so concerned that the science baby gets thrown out with the bath water while ignoring how easy it is to toss God out of the discussion.

When have I EVER “tossed God out of the discussion?”
God is who gives meaning to evolution and all natural processes!
I don’t recall you ever attempting to refute my arguments where I show that in attacking evolution, you’re actually attacking all the rest of science and also Biblical truth. You never showed that your argument doesn’t also undermine those. You never explained the difference between evolution and the rest of what we know by science, either, or affirmed that you in fact don’t accept anything science tells us.

A Creative Reason put it all together, not some random mutation and natural selection. God knew what Adam would look like.

Do I have to count and link to all the times I’ve said these very things? I’d probably fill a 6000 character post just trying to link to every time I’ve affirmed that in previous posts. Are you not reading what I write? Or do you not care and instead want to intentionally mischaracterize what I’ve been saying?

 

[Arandur]

Then, not because of God’s Word, but because of science – it becomes “you’re making science worthless!” No. But too often, people believe God becomes needless to the process. The evolution engine that starts itself, operates itself and spits out life forms ‘naturally.’ God? Pfft! Show me God in any Biology textbook or scientific paper.

Do you accept the distinction I have made between philosophies inspired by or hiding behind evolution and evolution as a limited scientific theory, a description of a process? Why or why not?
Taking God out of nature ignores first causes and is a materialist philosophy that has been around a long time before evolution. This is just the latest iteration. It does not invalidate evolution itself. It is something else entirely that goes beyond evolution and makes false conclusions from it.
Evolution did not start itself. God started it, He intended it and its outcomes, and it is only because of Him, as the only Necessary Being, that evolution or any other aspect of nature works and continues to function. The human soul, as something supernatural, is not explained by evolution but is created outside of nature by God.

Or, “I don’t believe in a deceiver God.” Once again, revealed truth is to blame, not science. Science knows what it’s talking about. The fault must be in the Bible.

WRONG. Revealed truth tells me that God is not a deceiver. It tells me that He is faithful and unchanging. It tells me that He created everything. It tells me that He gave man dominion over the earth. It tells me that He reveals Himself through nature and natural law, through His very creation, in addition to directly through relationship with man and in Jesus.

So, make up your mind. God was needed in a practical way in some sort of process or He wasn’t.

God was absolutely needed. He created nature and all its processes, including evolution. He created the human soul and formed Adam and Eve. Did you honestly miss the many times I’ve said this?

Currently, the schools are teaching a self-starting, self sustaining mechanical process that takes chemicals and makes men. And if you add Stephen Gould to the mix, it, the process, might have turned us all into reptile men had not a certain random mutation occurred. Got that? You’re going to have to pick one.

What can I tell you that will be more clear to you?

Again, do you accept the distinction between philosophy and science, and between materialistic philosophies that abuse evolution and the scientific theory itself? Why or why not?

If you want to say that you don’t accept the distinction, please do me the courtesy of going back to previous posts and read my arguments for why the distinction must be made. I’ve made them several times with no refutation from you; I shouldn’t have to make them again.

Evolution is “self-sustaining” only in the sense that all other natural processes continue to occur and operate. If not for God, they would cease, and so would all of existence.

Yes, evolution does suggest that if environmental conditions and a whole host of other factors were different, we could expect different species than we see today. However, God knew all of the outcomes when He designed nature. He Willed man. He thus created man, using whatever process He wished–who are you to deny God the ability to use a process like evolution?
If God had wanted us to have the form of reptile men, do you not think He would have created us so? It’s a possibility. Yet it did not occur, because God wanted it a different way. He didn’t just “take whatever He got;” He knew what He would get, and He planned it from the beginning.

 

[Arandur]

A few words about rocks.

First, if a group of rocks was part of a hill and wind and rain dislodged them, causing them to fall in a pile, there is no design there.

Oh really? How did the rocks come to exist? How did they come to be such a beautifully organized set of atoms interacting in a regular, organized way? Same question for the wind and the rain, and the forces by which they influenced the rocks?

Put another way, where in this pile of rocks is your God? Do they exist without God?

Specified complexity: I find a triangular rock. I examine it. It is not perfectly triangular and there are no marks on it except for a ragged break line along one edge. It’s just a triangular rock.

All forces and chemical compositions are far greater complexity than a triangular rock.

Then I find another triangular rock. It has specific and complex features. It is more closely triangular. There are regular chip marks along two edges that are quite uniform. As an archaeologist, I can safely conclude that this is not just a rock. It was fashioned by an intelligence and is now an arrowhead.

Again, far less complexity than forces and chemistry. What you are talking about is a modification made by a proximate cause. That modification had order, regularity, purpose.

The original material that was used in that arrowhead also has order, regularity, and purpose. So do all natural forces, though often in ways currently not fully understood. That is where God is, and how God can be in the law of gravity, of nuclear forces, of physical force and velocity, of chemical interactions, of genetic recombination, of adaptive response, of evolution.

Unfortunately, the outside world does not want to hear this. Too many do not want to hear about an intelligence because it might cause people to think of the God word.

You exaggerate reactions. The statistics show that less than a majority are concerned about the bogeyman that you are–that of evolution irreconcilable to God.

God revealed Himself in nature through Jesus Christ. Jesus showed what God can do: raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, give sight to the blind, turn water to wine, calm a storm by His word.

The question should not be: How does God fit into science but how does science compare to revealed truth?

I have spoken of this. Do you not think that God reveals Himself in His creation? Or does His creation tell us nothing about Him? How could what we find in creation be contrary to God, since it all comes from the same source?
Why would you ignore what we have revealed to us in creation?

Yes, Jesus came into nature. Yes, we know that God has power over His creation in miracles. What’s you’re point? No natural law is inconsistent with that.

“Any view of evolution that assumes on principle that biological nature is entirely governed by chance and blind laws must be in error.”

From the Catholic newspaper, Our Sunday Visitor, dated April 19, 2009. The author is Benjamin Wiker.

Only materialistic philosophies are “assuming on principle that biological nature is entirely governed by chance and blind laws.” Science cannot tell you how or why any of the laws or processes by which nature operates came to be.

You realize, I hope, that what Wiker has also clearly implied in that statement is that there are views of evolution that don’t “assume on principle that biological nature is entirely governed by chance and blind laws,” and that they need not be in error. In other words, evolution is not incompatible with the Catholic faith, only the idea that God is not behind it.