Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

[Arandur]

And so my dear, from the transition of posts so far, isn’t it evident that you assumed that my post assumed what you said it assumed? Isn’t it also clear that you’ve put the words “science is invalid” in my mouth? That’s a pathetic ploy for a trap by the way.
As you quoted here, I was responding to three people at once, not just you. Thus, I had to generalize a bit. The three of you made statements about the ridiculousness of evolutionary ideas about the soul. The three of you were basically saying that if evolution has things about the soul wrong, or if it can’t explain the soul, then it is false. Such an argument assumes that evolution says something about the soul. I responded by pointing out that it can’t say anything about the soul, since it is a science. Since the argument relies on evolution saying something erroneous about the soul, if it says nothing at all, the argument is false.

As for the argument that if it can’t explain the soul, evolution must be false (I believe this was more Reggie’s argument), this argument requires evolution, a science, to go beyond its limits. Apply that argument to any science (not just evolution) and you are essentially requiring science to remark on things beyond its limits in order to be valid (thus my generalization “science is invalid”). But there is much in science that we accept as valid, despite the fact that it can’t remark on the supernatural. So where does the requirement that evolution must say something about the soul come from?

You should take deep breaths because so far, you haven’t defended your position intelligently, but rather, you are trying to force your arguments down people’s throat, spouting seemingly intelligent words, sentences, phrases, paragraphs and yet your arguments are constipated, bordering on the paranoia thereby you get baited and retaliate with poorly coordinated ideas.

Nice ad hominems. Try a real argument, like responding to my own.

You stated that science and faith are complementary yet you cancelled out that statement of yours by stating next: “they operate on different subject matter,” I think you have a troubled mind. If they are complementary, they would operate on the same subject matter with different angles and perspectives yet arriving at one desired end result, and in this case, the subject matter is evolution.

Expand your understanding of the word “complementary.”
dictionary.reference.com/browse/complementary
I meant it in the sense that they both describe God’s truth and thus help us understand Him better because He is Truth.
My use of the word fits all four definitions of the second reference, directly or by analogy. Like complementary colors (which are different), science and faith produce beautiful contrast.
Science supplies the need of understanding nature, faith supplies the need of understanding of supernatural things. Each offsets what the other lacks.
Like complementary genes, the two interact to produce something beyond each alone–a greater understanding of God’s truth.
Like complementary chemicals, science and faith fit naturally with each other to form a greater whole, a greater understanding of God’s truth.

So you say scientific theory of evolution doesn’t have anything to say about religious matters or supernatural causes. This is not so, try looking into the very reason why Darwin came up with this theory. Somewhere in this forum, it has already been discussed but do go over them for refresher.

And when that was brought up earlier, it was clarified that Darwin’s original theory was well before he had an agenda, but was merely trying to explain what he observed. So no, the agenda that came later in his life was not the “very reason [that] Darwin came up with this theory.”
Further, at the time that was discussed, we also discussed that Darwin’s motives are irrelevant. The truth of an idea or argument is independent of the motives for someone’s use or belief of it. Besides, many scientists working on the theory have no such agenda (even the statistical data given on the beliefs of scientists supports this), and scientists through history have discovered things without having the best of intentions.

And we wouldn’t have this endless debate on the theory of evolution if it does not conflict with faith at all.
Another non sequitur. Apply this same line of reasoning to other debates. For some, the idea of heliocentrism appeared to conflict with faith. Do you maintain there was indeed a conflict just because there was a debate?
For some, the idea of the existence of evil conflicts with faith in an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God. Do you think the mere fact that such a debate is long-lived indicates there is a conflict with faith?
For some, the idea of the Trinity conflicts with the belief in one God, and they debate that fact. This one has been going on for almost 2000 years. Is that proof that the idea of the Trinity conflicts with faith in one God?
For some, the use of various medical technology appears as sorcery against faith in God’s commandments. Is their debate proof of a conflict?
I could continue, but I trust you get the point.

 

[Arandur]

But tell me in your very own words, where does the theory evolution stand at this point in time?

What do you mean, “where does it stand?” What does the theory describe well and where does it need more work? That would require a dissertation. Is it totally true (something that can’t really be said of a scientific theory not yet able to explain all the things it is supposed to explain, like relativity theory or string theory or evolution–yet which doesn’t invalidate the concepts)? No, like many scientific theories, it has areas that are weak and need improvement.

Is evolution at odds with faith? Evolution properly understood (limited to an explanation of natural phenomena, not extrapolated from to derive philosophical principles) is not in conflict with Catholic theology. The Church teaches that there are supernatural things, God created all, had a purpose for all, specifically willed man, gave man a soul in His image and likeness, works miracles to benefit His children, intervenes in our lives seeking relationship, and Incarnated to be one of us. It does not presume to teach us how ecosystems work, nor genetics, nor population, nor speciation, nor any other natural process. Evolution and other scientific theories describe those things, but can say nothing of what the Church does teach, not even that they don’t exist, for in fact God, at least, must exist for there to be anything for science to study. Together, faith and science provide us with understanding of the world we live in, that God created, that God reveals Himself through, both spiritually and physically. They complement each other.

 

[Arandur]

As I see things God created everything by his word, not through some evolutionary process. Consider this passage from the second story of creation.

 "The Lord God said:  'It is not good for man to be alone.  I will make a suitable partner for him.'  19 So the Lord **formed out of the ground** various wild animals and various birds of the air, and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each of them would be its name.  20 The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be the suiable partner for the man.

 21  So the Lord God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.  22 The Lord God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man, 23 the man said:
       'This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh;
       This one shall be called 'woman,'
       for out of 'her man' this one has been taken.'"

The first creature on earth appears to be man, then animal, then Eve. How could man come from some common ancestor with apes when man enterd the picture of creation before the ape? Maybe we share similarity with other animals, like apes, as seen in our genes, but I don’t think it is safe to say we descended from them because of this similarity. We just share some familial relationship with them being creatures of the same God. We would be turning the story of creation into a fable if we do not understand it as it written, so I think we need to attend to the fact that man came before the animal in the second story of creation.

Read the first creation story, from Genesis one, and man is the last creation, the crowning achievement.

Your bolded section (the first) sounds to me like an inherent metaphor to evolution, even the proverbial “primordial soup.” As does Genesis 1’s “let the waters bring forth.”

 

[ready]

Read the first creation story, from Genesis one, and man is the last creation, the crowning achievement.

Your bolded section (the first) sounds to me like an inherent metaphor to evolution, even the proverbial “primordial soup.” As does Genesis 1’s “let the waters bring forth.”

Yes.

 

[Arandur]

So, the soul has some influence on the human body.

The human body (the subject of science and evolutionary theory) is affected by the soul. It is affected in ways that can be observed.

Observed by human experience (which goes beyond the mere physical because we are more than just physical beings); not measurable by science. Do you think the soul is measurable in some scientific way? If not, can the cause of the soul’s effects on the body really be discovered by science, when the soul is supernatural rather than physical? Then the soul is not the subject of science, and science can’t use it in its explanations, except to inspire a philosophical conjecture that the soul is the cause of something observed.

The human soul is the source of consciousness, free will, memory, imagination and the spiritual nature of man. If we take free-will alone – this has major influences on the body, especially with “selection” and “adaptation”. The soul enables a man to freely choose – against nature. Thus, this is a major effect on so-called evolution.

Only on human evolution. Not on the rest of nature. And even in micro-evolution at the human level (adaptation, genetic and morphological change), environmental factors still play a significant part (racial isolation or intermixing, cultural/behavioral norms, exposure to diseases or environmental extremes, etc.).

In ignoring this aspect and treating it as if it does not exist (as evolutionary-science does), it gives a false representation of the human being.

No, it doesn’t represent the whole of the human being. Evolution does not try to explain everything about the human being. Evolutionary philosophies (including “evolutionary psychology”) might go further, but I haven’t been defending them. The biological theory doesn’t attempt to explain a lot of human experience, so why do you judge it for something it doesn’t try to explain?

An aspect of humanity, which you admit has an influence on the human body, could have profound effects on evolutionary processes.

For humans. Not for the rest of nature. Even man’s impact on nature still fits in with the theory, because it just becomes another environmental factor.

But this fact is omitted by science - deliberately.

Because it recognizes its own limits.

Nowhere in the scientific literature does it state that evolutionary-theory cannot be fully correct until it factors in the influence of the powers of the human soul.

Because such a statement would not be true. It doesn’t try to explain all of being human. It only tries to explain natural influences on the human body. Even then, the primary focus and use of evolution is really in explaining the central system in the ongoing development of the rest of biological nature. The human subject is merely a point of interest, not the whole of the theory.

Do you reject the perennial Catholic teaching on what the nature of the soul is? If so, where did you learn about what the soul is, and why should we believe that rather than what the Holy Church has taught us (including with an infallible statement) for centuries?

Perhaps you are a dissenting, liberalized Catholic – I don’t know.

If not, then you need not invent your own idea of what the soul is.

Please go back to the first question – repeated again:

What influence does the soul have on the human body?

Wait, are you asking this again, or is this a typo? I answered it already.

It “can” say whatever it wants.

Not validly. On what scientific basis could any field of science argue that God is one in three persons? Science can’t validly make a claim like that, because it can’t validly claim something beyond its limits–knowledge based on observable physical phenomena.

But it “won’t” say it.

Responsibly so, for the above reasons. In fact, the Church would put science in its place if it tried to do so, saying that science cannot make such statements (regarding the soul, things spiritual).

We can see, as you admit, that the human body is influenced by the human soul. The body is the subject of science. One cannot explain the human person without understaning the effect of the soul. This alone proves the fallacy of evolutionary theory.

See above. You have a misunderstanding about the validity of a discipline or idea, and in particular about what evolution claims. Relativity theory cannot be false for not explaining how spiritual things affect matter and energy, can it? It doesn’t explain what angels can do. Is it false because it doesn’t accurately describe something it doesn’t even claim to describe?

Yes, but where in the scientific literature does it state this? As I see it, you’re arguing for a private version of evolution. All of the evolutionary literature claims to explain “everything” about human origins, or at least that it is possible to explain everything. Darwin himself said this.

As the Church has said, evolutionary theory is a possibility, in its proper context (not trying to claim things about spiritual things that it cannot claim). Even if all scientific literature were to make claims that it shouldn’t be making, the theories it describes within properly limited scientific scope would not be made wrong by such false claims.

For instance, if Galileo had claimed there was no God because the earth revolves around the sun (assuming Scripture suggests that the earth revolves around the sun, it doesn’t seem like Scripture can be true), would it make his theory of heliocentrism false? (I use this example because the errant common perception is that the Church thought Galileo was claiming just this).

 

[Arandur]

This is a radically different point of view than can be found in mainstream science. You’re basically rejecting the claims of the evolutionary-science culture.

No, it isn’t. You seem to think everything that anyone says about evolution comes with the materialist philosophical baggage that God doesn’t exist. It’s simply not so. Your own statistics on the beliefs of scientists show a significant number who don’t hold to such materialist atheism.

In this case, I fully agree with you though. But I cannot argue with a personalized version of evolution since it belongs to you alone.

It only does insofar as everyone has a slightly different belief and understanding about what information they receive. Does that mean you can’t argue the truth of that information?
I’m trying to show you how the information of the biological theory of evolution is or can be true with no conflict with our faith, limited as it must be within its own sphere and not misapplied to philosophical declarations about supernatural realities. Put more simply, the scientific theory itself is fine; it does not conflict with faith. It is only philosophical extensions of it that conflict with faith.

I can’t reference evolutionary papers that state that evolution cannot fully explain human life.

Oh? You think biological evolution claims to “fully explain” such things as consciousness, abstract thought, free will, imagination, meaning, human spiritual beliefs, etc? In my education at a state university, in obtaining my B.S. in biology and minor in environmental science, I can honestly say that I do not think I ever once heard anyone make a claim that evolution could fully explain human life. In fact, outside of what are essentially position papers from people primarily addressing theological or philosophical questions, I can’t recall ever hearing of such a claim, in a textbook, journal, or other source. In fact, I have consistently heard evolution explained with its limitations. Even in scientific journals, while authors have some freedom to speculate in their background and conclusion sections, the content of their studies are naturally limited by what they can observe, which obviously makes philosophical speculation just that.

Perhaps you’re talking about evolutionary psychology, something I know little about but which sounds like a psuedo-science that is really a philosophy masquerading as science.

Yours is a more Catholic view, and that is very good. But yours is also a radical critique of mainstream science. To have that level of distrust (which I do also), why not extend it to a distrust of many of the findings of science which claim to explain human beings minus anything about the influence of the soul?

Oh, I reject any claim that human existence can be entirely explained without the soul, or that anything could possibly exist at all without God. But I also don’t think there really are any “findings of science” that claim such a thing. Science is too limited to claim spiritual things; any such claims are not science. People may make those claims, but they go beyond science to do it. So it cannot be said that such claims are “findings of science,” only that they are philosophical speculations inspired by some finding of science.

I have always found this idea that so many scientists are atheistic or against faith odd, because I have only rarely encountered it. At a Catholic high school, that’s to be expected. But I’ve had discussions with many different science professors at a state university, Boston university, and Columbia university who never saw such problems. They were similarly bewildered at why people make such a big deal about scientific observations of the age of the universe or of evolution, because they didn’t believe science could say anything negative about God.

So in my experience, I’d have to say that my understanding that science is limited to physical things and can’t make claims about God or spiritual things is the mainstream understanding of science. In fact, I’ve read that in textbooks–when the scientific method is explained, it is made clear that science can only rely on what is observable and measurable. There is no claim that everything that exists must be observable and measurable, thus the clear logical conclusion is that science cannot explain everything that exists.

In short – I find a lot more agreement with you than I thought – and that, for me is good.
Thanks for taking the time with this explanation.

Thanks. I’m glad we found some common ground. I think you’re now seeing how our recent popes could say that evolution is not necessarily in conflict with faith (when understood in its proper context). So whether you believe it is a true scientific theory or not, you see how it, in that proper context, is not at odds with faith?

Sorry for the book

 

[Arandur]

Language itself is pretty much irreducibly complex.

Really? Would you agree with this definition of irreducible complexity?:
“A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin’s Black Box p39 in the 2006 edition)”
If so, what are your irreducibly complex elements? There are languages that do not use vowels as such (Hebrew); languages that entirely lack parts of speech or grammatical structures that exist in other languages; languages that are not written, and manners of writing that are quire different from each other; languages that lack words or meanings or idioms that other languages have.

Even if you get down to the subject/verb level, all you’re doing is defining language. Language is merely a form of communication–the purpose is communication. You’re not defining what all communication forms must have in order to work.

The parallel to evolution is that language is a form of communication–like a Family or Order on a classification tree. Language serves a purpose of communication and is a type of it. Organisms have a purpose of “living” (something we’ve roughly defined by various traits), and there are many types of them. Organisms, like languages and other forms of communication, differ in structure. Like organisms, languages and other forms of communication change in response to environmental stimuli and what is more “successful” at conveying meaning/reproducing.

Relative to natural law.

What do you mean? I thought we were talking about order, organization, “randomness,” disorder/chaos. How can these concepts be relative to natural law, something without understanding or consciousness?

God would not create something that is not accessible to us through reason.

I agree! I thought you agreed with the notion, however, that God does not have to reveal things to us through nature (the common anti-“deceiver God” response I was getting)? Those two ideas appear mutually exclusive to me, which is why I was arguing just what you said in this quote.

This notion of “random mutations” flies in the face of the idea that the universe is intelligible and that it makes sense.

No, it doesn’t. As I said earlier, “random” does not mean “unknowable.” All those “random” mutations are the result of extremely complex interactions of physical principles, from the environmental level to the atomic, chemical level. If we knew all the variables involved perfectly, we could predict perfectly.

Put another way, if you think the notion of “random mutations” would render the universe unintelligible, then wouldn’t ANY “random” occurrence? What about throwing a die or tossing a coin? My point is that if we knew the exact weight of the coin, how it was distributed across the coin, how much force you exerted on that coin and where, how high it flew and far it dropped, any other forces (such as air movement and friction), and the nature of the surface on which it landed, we could predict with certainty which side would land up. Would you still call the outcome “random” if you knew all that?

My point is this. For a long time we speculated light and heat to be non-material things. If you use a materialistic approach to science, you’ll most certainly miss cardinal aspects of reality. This is why you must be inclusive in scientific endeavor. The mind for example is what sits on top of our physical brains. But without understanding the mind, we know little about the brain.

One can attempt to measure things and in so doing discover whether or not they are measurable. That is how light and heat were discovered to be measurable forms of energy. Do you think we will be able to measure souls, minds?

We know a lot about the brain and very little about the mind. We can correlate, barely, activities of the mind with activities of the brain (scans of brain activity while people are thinking about certain things), but we can’t prove anything about the mind scientifically.

You missed the point completely. Natural selection alone fails to explain why multicellular systems evolved in the first place. Since evidently single celled organism can already outgrow, and outlive the competition. My claim is not that it does not happen, but that evolutionary theory is insufficient.

No, I got your point, you’re missing mine.
“Outgrowing” and “outliving” the competition are not the only factors involved in evolution or ecology. If a cluster of single celled organisms is more successful than more isolated organisms (due to production of chemicals, modification of local environment, sheltering each other, etc.), the cluster effect will outcompete others to some extent, even if it takes longer to replicate such a cluster. If one cell develops a symbiosis with another cell, the two will be better off and will tend to continue such a beneficial arrangement and improve it even more. That’s a likely theory for the origin of mitochondria in eukaryotic cells.

 

[M0nkey]

Language is merely a form of communication–the purpose is communication. You’re not defining what all communication forms must have in order to work.

I believe you are reducing language to some form of communication which some animals already posses. A dolphin for example can hear certain commands and react. But, in order to have intelligible cogent conversation, the kind that leads to self awareness with emotions and logic, you would need far more. To the degree that you can have that kind of communication you may argue that this is in fact irreducibly complex. I’ve already stated you need verbs among other things. Again, this would not be revising language as I’ve already explained what intelligible language is.

No, it doesn’t. As I said earlier, “random” does not mean “unknowable.” All those “random” mutations are the result of extremely complex interactions of physical principles, from the environmental level to the atomic, chemical level. If we knew all the variables involved perfectly, we could predict perfectly.

I believe this is the main argument. Now, if it’s predictable, it wouldn’t be called “random” now would it? I think we could call it “complex”, which I would agree with.

What about throwing a die or tossing a coin?

I agree with your assertion there. Logically, if you knew everything there is to know given physical vertexes and forces. It wouldn’t be random at all. My point is this should be our approach when it comes to natural phenomena; God has ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight. (Wisdom 11:21)

Do you think we will be able to measure souls, minds?

Are you suggesting it is impossible?

We know a lot about the brain and very little about the mind.

Correct, but what we know about the brain is because of the mind. It is evident that when something goes physically wrong, the mind follows it with a particular exhibited behavior. The two are not mutually exclusive.

If one cell develops a symbiosis with another cell, the two will be better off and will tend to continue such a beneficial arrangement and improve it even more.

No doubt this may happen. Although natural selection coupled with random mutations does not tell us *why *this occurs; other than, well, it just happens! That’s all. Not to mention, I’m not entirely convinced that it in fact does occur. This should be observable phenomena with common bacteria or in the lab.

 

[Arandur]

Thanks for replying succinctly and getting to your points. As you know, that is not my gift I see more common ground here, so I think I can put things quickly.

I believe you are reducing language to some form of communication which some animals already posses. A dolphin for example can hear certain commands and react. But, in order to have intelligible cogent conversation, the kind that leads to self awareness with emotions and logic, you would need far more. To the degree that you can have that kind of communication you may argue that this is in fact irreducibly complex. I’ve already stated you need verbs among other things. Again, this would not be revising language as I’ve already explained what intelligible language is.

Not just what animals possess, but also other forms of communication that humans use. My point is in clarifying the analogy. I’m saying that language is a form of communication; the purpose of communication is for two creatures (or people, if you prefer) to convey meaning of some kind to one another. There are many forms of it. These forms change and even become more complex based on the needs of the communicants and their increasing ability to understand.

In the analogy to evolution, communication in general is equivalent to living organisms in general. Many forms with the same purpose (yes, humans have a grander purpose in God’s scheme, but this is reflected in the supernatural human soul which other creatures don’t have). Environmental forces act on both organisms and forms of communication in roughly analogous ways. Language may only have been possible due to the human soul’s intellect, but once it was possible, it was subject to these forces as well. Different languages are analogous to different species.

I believe this is the main argument. Now, if it’s predictable, it wouldn’t be called “random” now would it? I think we could call it “complex”, which I would agree with.

My point is that the way scientists use the term “random” includes implicitly what I have described. In common speech “random” means something much more vague; in science, I think virtually all scientists recognize that greater knowledge leads to more understanding and predictability, and thus “random” is ultimately synonymous with “complex.” Though to some extent, due to the sheer number of variables and Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, most scientists don’t expect to ever have the depth of knowledge necessary to predict these extremely complex things on such minute levels as genetic mutation.

I agree with your assertion there. Logically, if you knew everything there is to know given physical vertexes and forces. It wouldn’t be random at all. My point is this should be our approach when it comes to natural phenomena; God has ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight. (Wisdom 11:21)

Yes, and I think it is the approach of science.

Are you suggesting it is impossible?

No, but unlikely. I do not believe that spiritual things can be measured physically. That would be a paradox, impossible by definition, paradoxical only if the definitions are inaccurate.

Correct, but what we know about the brain is because of the mind. It is evident that when something goes physically wrong, the mind follows it with a particular exhibited behavior. The two are not mutually exclusive.

They influence each other, yes. I just don’t know how science can detect the mind, beyond perhaps some of the influence it has on the brain.

No doubt this may happen. Although natural selection coupled with random mutations does not tell us *why *this occurs; other than, well, it just happens! That’s all.

Yes and no. Science will never tell us “why” in the sense of meaning. It does suggest “why” in terms of response to environmental pressures and methods of genetic recombination.

Not to mention, I’m not entirely convinced that it in fact does occur. This should be observable phenomena with common bacteria or in the lab.

The beneficial effects of clustering are apparent on a basic level in bacterial cultures. The bacteria more successful at it will survive and tend to produce more bacteria that are consistently successful.

Beyond that, robotics and programming have demonstrated the plausibility of the concept.

 

[reggieM]

It only does insofar as everyone has a slightly different belief and understanding about what information they receive. Does that mean you can’t argue the truth of that information?

When the discussion is “evolution”, I’m talking about the mainstream evolutionary theory held by the vast majority of scientists. People are free to create their own theories, but I can’t reference their work anywhere so it makes a discussion difficult to impossible.

If one has to create an entirely new theory to explain evolution, then this is a radical critique in itself.

I’m trying to show you how the information of the biological theory of evolution is or can be true with no conflict with our faith,

Again, you reference “the biological theory”. But you’re referring to your own theory – not “the” theory. Pope John Paul II pointed out that there are “several theories” of evolution which are “incompatible” with the Catholic faith. Among those are mainstream evolutionary theory – which is what is normally called “evolution”.

Put more simply, the scientific theory itself is fine; it does not conflict with faith. It is only philosophical extensions of it that conflict with faith.

Again, I think we showed that this is not correct for mainstream evolutionary theory. It does conflict with the faith for reasons given.

In my education at a state university, in obtaining my B.S. in biology and minor in environmental science, I can honestly say that I do not think I ever once heard anyone make a claim that evolution could fully explain human life.

You use the term “could” which can mean different things. Has any of your professors ever said that it is “impossible” for biology to explain all of human life? I’ve already shown that mainstream-evolutionary theory cannot (not possible to) explain the development of human beings – it is false on that basis alone (not to mention for many other reasons). When you use the phrase that nobody said “evolution could fully explain human life” – what you mean is “evolution cannot presently explain human life”. What we know, however, is that human life “cannot possibly” be explained by physical, material science alone. But scientists do not say that. The assumption is that biology can do it, but just hasn’t figured it out yet. Evolution cannot explain how the soul influenced the development of the body – thus, it makes false assumptions that natural selection and mutation (or other physical laws alone) are responsible.

In fact, I have consistently heard evolution explained with its limitations. Even in scientific journals, while authors have some freedom to speculate in their background and conclusion sections, the content of their studies are naturally limited by what they can observe, which obviously makes philosophical speculation just that.

In this case however, we already proved that scientists can observe the effects of the human soul on the body. So, they disregard something that is observable. Thus, the science is biased and false.

Perhaps you’re talking about evolutionary psychology, something I know little about but which sounds like a psuedo-science that is really a philosophy masquerading as science.

I wasn’t talking about that, but I do agree with your assessment. I was talking about mainstream evolutionary theory.

Oh, I reject any claim that human existence can be entirely explained without the soul …

I think your views put you at odds with the scientific community.

They were similarly bewildered at why people make such a big deal about scientific observations of the age of the universe or of evolution, because they didn’t believe science could say anything negative about God.

Well, we see the proof in this argument. The soul affects the body. The effects can be observed. But this fact is excluded from science. It proceeds as if it can explain the development of the human body by evolutionary theory (a materialistic method) – and thus denies the spiritual nature of man.

So in my experience, I’d have to say that my understanding that science is limited to physical things and can’t make claims about God or spiritual things is the mainstream understanding of science.

It is thus false in it’s assessment of human development and certainly in claims about human origins through evolution.

Thanks. I’m glad we found some common ground. I think you’re now seeing how our recent popes could say that evolution is not necessarily in conflict with faith (when understood in its proper context). So whether you believe it is a true scientific theory or not, you see how it, in that proper context, is not at odds with faith?

I believe that mainstream evolutionary theory is false, for many reasons. I believe the popes have warned very seriously about that.

Could someone make up an evolutionary speculation that is compatible with the Catholic Faith? Sure – I could do that.

I could claim that God created various creatures by “emerging” them from the first creatures He created ex nihilo. Mutations and natural selection would be totally irrelevant and false in this case. Instead, it’s creation “ex creatura” – creation from nothing, then later creations from existing beings. God could shape creatures in many ways. He can create sons of Abraham from these very stones.

Or another, much easier “evolutionary theory” is that God created the original supernatural “forms” and those forms have adapted slightly over time (micro-evolution).

This is fully compatible with Catholicism.

But today’s mainstream evolutionary theory is false and incompatible with the Catholic faith, for reasons given, and for which I think we agree.

 

[Arandur]

When the discussion is “evolution”, I’m talking about the mainstream evolutionary theory held by the vast majority of scientists. People are free to create their own theories, but I can’t reference their work anywhere so it makes a discussion difficult to impossible.

If one has to create an entirely new theory to explain evolution, then this is a radical critique in itself.

Again, you reference “the biological theory”. But you’re referring to your own theory – not “the” theory. Pope John Paul II pointed out that there are “several theories” of evolution which are “incompatible” with the Catholic faith. Among those are mainstream evolutionary theory – which is what is normally called “evolution”.

Again, I think we showed that this is not correct for mainstream evolutionary theory. It does conflict with the faith for reasons given.

I disagree. I have consistently made the distinction between philosophy and science because I think it is quite real. You refuse to distinguish philosophical extensions from science in what you call “mainstream evolutionary theory.” I think that is erroneous and even bordering on disingenuous. The distinction is important. Science defines its limits pretty clearly. The mainstream scientific theory of evolution, contained within the discipline of biology, does not make philosophical statements about souls, God, or what it means to be human. It simply doesn’t. To assume so is simply wrong, for as soon as you do, you go beyond science into other philosophies. Mainstream scientific theories of evolution are not in conflict with faith. Common materialist philosophical extensions of evolution ARE in conflict with the faith.

You use the term “could” which can mean different things. Has any of your professors ever said that it is “impossible” for biology to explain all of human life?

Yes, several. Even if they hadn’t it’s implicit in the definition of science.

I’ve already shown that mainstream-evolutionary theory cannot (not possible to) explain the development of human beings – it is false on that basis alone (not to mention for many other reasons).

You’ve argued. I’ve argued against this because of the lack of distinctions you make and because of logic errors in concluding falsehood about something that is not claimed.

Perhaps it would help if you could snatch some quotes of succinct descriptions or definitions of “mainstream evolutionary theory” that you’re basing your arguments on. The source and context will matter. Textbooks and journals will more closely describe the science (though even they have editorial sections); other things like magazine articles or individual scientists or certain associations may well describe their own take on how evolution should be used philosophically.

When you use the phrase that nobody said “evolution could fully explain human life” – what you mean is “evolution cannot presently explain human life”.

No, I meant that science is too limited to ever fully explain human life. We know by human experience there are certain things science cannot observe and measure.

What we know, however, is that human life “cannot possibly” be explained by physical, material science alone.

Yes.

But scientists do not say that.

No, you are wrong here. I have heard many scientists say just that–that science cannot possibly explain all aspects or dimensions of human life. Your statistics would support my experience, showing as they do a very significant number of theistic scientists.

The assumption is that biology can do it, but just hasn’t figured it out yet.

That may be the assumption of some, the materialistic atheists who disregard human experience and believe there is nothing existent that is not physical and material.

Evolution cannot explain how the soul influenced the development of the body – thus, it makes false assumptions that natural selection and mutation (or other physical laws alone) are responsible.

No, that does not follow. Just because evolution can’t explain how the soul influences the body does not mean it makes false assumptions about natural selection and mutation. For one thing, where do you get from faith that the soul existed in earlier species of human? If it did not exist until homo sapiens sapiens, or even at either earlier level (homo sapiens or homo), the soul’s “influence on the development of the body” would have been minimal, for it would have already formed prior to the soul. For another thing, most of evolution has to do with other organisms that do not have a human soul, and can accurately describe them without necessarily accurately describing humans. For a third, evolutionary forces have been observed to affect humans. The soul adds another factor for humans, but does not negate the effects of other natural forces on human traits on some level. So your accusation of falsity and “false assumptions” is inaccurate on three levels, at least.

 

[Arandur]

In this case however, we already proved that scientists can observe the effects of the human soul on the body. So, they disregard something that is observable. Thus, the science is biased and false.

No. They don’t “disregard it.” They make mention of factors they can’t describe. They continue to try to describe and explain everything they can observe. What is wrong with that? It’s how science has to work. If not, it could not be science.

I think your views put you at odds with the scientific community.

I don’t. I think you have some major misconceptions about the scientific community. How many scientists do you know personally? How many have you had contact with, but perhaps more distantly? How often do you read science textbooks or journals?

Not much can be proven on anecdotal experience, but it can lend significant evidence, and I think my own experience through universities and academic study gives me a pretty good personal familiarity with the “scientific community.” I find that many people who are vehemently opposed to evolution are quite out of touch with the scientific community or are only familiar with a small segment of them vocal about personal views, and make improper judgments and exaggerations about that which they are unfamiliar.

Well, we see the proof in this argument. The soul affects the body. The effects can be observed. But this fact is excluded from science. It proceeds as if it can explain the development of the human body by evolutionary theory (a materialistic method) – and thus denies the spiritual nature of man.

False conclusions. See above, particularly about “development of the human body,” which is an idea in your argument that doesn’t make sense since evolution is primarily concerned with other organisms and development up until our current species, and faith does not tell us that the soul was imparted before our current species. Also, science notes even physical variables it can’t measure or control all the time, and excludes them. Exclusion does not mean “denial.” That just does not follow.

It is thus false in it’s assessment of human development and certainly in claims about human origins through evolution.

At least now you’re limiting yourself to “humans” only. But if humans share many similarities as organisms to other organisms, on what basis do you suggest here that what science has discovered about how organisms are affected by natural forces does not apply at all to humans? Certainly it applies in part, and to the extent of our knowledge. Therefore to say that evolution tells us nothing about humans or is false with regard to humans is disregard all this.

What is more accurate would be to say that evolution (and other areas of science) does not describe human being completely. And I have argued that science makes no such claim (nor can it) that it can describe humans completely, so there is no false claim. Further, even if the claim was false, the processes the theories describe would not be made wholly false just because of a false claim about the completeness of those theories.

I believe that mainstream evolutionary theory is false, for many reasons. I believe the popes have warned very seriously about that.

Could someone make up an evolutionary speculation that is compatible with the Catholic Faith? Sure – I could do that.

I could claim that God created various creatures by “emerging” them from the first creatures He created ex nihilo. Mutations and natural selection would be totally irrelevant and false in this case. Instead, it’s creation “ex creatura” – creation from nothing, then later creations from existing beings. God could shape creatures in many ways. He can create sons of Abraham from these very stones.

Or another, much easier “evolutionary theory” is that God created the original supernatural “forms” and those forms have adapted slightly over time (micro-evolution).

This is fully compatible with Catholicism.

But today’s mainstream evolutionary theory is false and incompatible with the Catholic faith, for reasons given, and for which I think we agree.

But what evidence or support would you have for this theory that you just made up? What evidence must it ignore?

You can’t just make things up. The FACT is that there is a lot of physical evidence and observation out there. It must be explained somehow. Biological evolution is currently the best explanation, and it is compatible with the faith. Discarding evidence in favor of a more supernatural theory that makes you feel better does not serve Truth and leads us away from God, not toward Him. Do you think He wants us to learn from His creation, or to make up stories about it that deny what we can see in it?

 

[reggieM]

I disagree. I have consistently made the distinction between philosophy and science because I think it is quite real. You refuse to distinguish philosophical extensions from science in what you call “mainstream evolutionary theory.”

Why is the observation of the soul’s effect on the body a “philosophical consideration”? Is science forbidden from discussing matters that affect the human body?

Yes, several. Even if they hadn’t it’s implicit in the definition of science.

Where is it stated explicitly, in any science book, that evolution “cannot possibly” explain the development of human beings? In other words, that it is impossible for science to explain the origin and development of human life.

No, I meant that science is too limited to ever fully explain human life.

Again, I don’t think there is anywhere in science literature where this distinction is drawn, but I will look and post what I find.

We know by human experience there are certain things science cannot observe and measure.

This is not the point - you’re mistaking it. Let me repeat (in case you want to call me disingenuous.
You have stated categorically, that the human soul has an observable influence on the human body (and I fully agree with that). You now are arguing about things that “science cannot observe”. Can you see how this changes the topic and creates a new argument?
Once again, science can certainly measure effects of the human soul on the body. Those effects include the result of free-will choices which override natural selection. Why is this not factored into evolutionary theory? Immaterial aspects of humanity have an influence on the body. One does not need to study the soul to observe the effects of the soul. Thus, materialistic claims about evolution (virtually all evolutionary literature offers soley materialistic claims for human origins) are false.

No, you are wrong here. I have heard many scientists say just that–that science cannot possibly explain all aspects or dimensions of human life.

At this point, references to evolutionary texts would help. I can help by showing you quotes from mainstream, highly regarded, honored and accredited evolutionary scientists who show the opposite. In fact, the most well-respected evolutionists reject your notion. So, it’s important to see which scientists claim otherwise.

No, that does not follow. Just because evolution can’t explain how the soul influences the body does not mean it makes false assumptions about natural selection and mutation.

It does not need to explain “how”. It merely needs to explain that it does happen. An immaterial substance affects the human body – thus, mutations and natural selection (and any other physical laws) alone are insufficient for explaining the origin and development of human beings. This falsifies evolutionary theory.

For one thing, where do you get from faith that the soul existed in earlier species of human? If it did not exist until homo sapiens sapiens, or even at either earlier level (homo sapiens or homo), the soul’s “influence on the development of the body” would have been minimal, for it would have already formed prior to the soul.

Here you’re offering a scientific view (minimal change in the body) regarding the effect of the human soul on it. Have evolutionary “laws” ceased to operate in the case of human beings? If not, then the effect of the soul is still relevant. But even so, you’ve shown a good way to measure this effect (sort of), but dismiss the influence of the soul because the effect on evolution was supposedly minimal. But this really makes a big difference – what if the human soul (consciousness, free-will, etc) was present at a very early stage, causing massive changes (due to free choice, not natural selection)?
Science is totally unprepared for this – thus the sweeping claims of human origins are false (and there are sweeping claims).

For another thing, most of evolution has to do with other organisms that do not have a human soul, and can accurately describe them without necessarily accurately describing humans.

This is a good point. But I think it’s a major and serious critique of evolutionary theory.

For a third, evolutionary forces have been observed to affect humans. The soul adds another factor for humans, but does not negate the effects of other natural forces on human traits on some level. So your accusation of falsity and “false assumptions” is inaccurate on three levels, at least.

If my accusation is false because you provided reasons why some part of it can be refuted, then evolutionary theory is false on the same basis.

With the reasons you gave, you have to exclude the study of human evolution or the profound effects of the soul to defend evolutionary theory. But you will still defend it, even considering this false aspect (which is quite significant).

Let me propose that you are right in all of that, and you could be.

How can you walk away wondering “what is the problem with evolutionary theory”?

We can see, that it contains major problems in terms of claims made about the origin and development of human beings. These problems are very serious – so there is a good reason to be concerned.

 

[reggieM]

Biological evolution is currently the best explanation, and it is compatible with the faith.

You’ve already shown, in your own responses, that you do not accept mainstream evolutionary theory and that you accept that it is incompatible with the Faith. Physical processes alone cannot correctly describe the development of human beings. If one “discards evidence” of the power of the human soul on the development of human beings, then the resulting science is false and misleading.

Discarding evidence in favor of a more supernatural theory that makes you feel better does not serve Truth and leads us away from God, not toward Him.

If you’re willing to deny the observable evidence of free-will and consciousness – aspects of the soul, in defense of materialistic evolutionary theories, then that is simply defending what is false and denying the Truth. The evidence points against the “less supernatural theory” that you’re defending. In fact, mainstream evolutionary theory has no place for God’s power at all – while making claims about the origin and development of human life (absent God). That is why evolution is a foundation for atheistic thought.

Do you think He wants us to learn from His creation, or to make up stories about it that deny what we can see in it?

Evolutionary theory is a colleciton of made-up stories which deny what we can easily see in nature. God wants us to fight against such falsehoods and errrors. We are to use science to glorify and praise and serve God – and to recognize his power and Intelligent design in the things he has made (just as Peter Kreeft explained).

 

[Michaelo]

Why is the observation of the soul’s effect on the body a “philosophical consideration”? Is science forbidden from discussing matters that affect the human body?

As I said before, the source of this effect is a metaphysical phenomenon that requires us to enter philosophical, theological, etc. realms to further investigate it.

Immaterial aspects of humanity have an influence on the body. One does not need to study the soul to observe the effects of the soul.

Observing the soul’s influence is different from attempting to explain it. Science permits us to observe the physical effects, but it does not allow us to attribute them to a metaphysical phenomenon.

I can help by showing you quotes from mainstream, highly regarded, honored and accredited evolutionary scientists who show the opposite. In fact, the most well-respected evolutionists reject your notion.

You definitely should start referencing these scientists and their quotes.

It does not need to explain “how”. It merely needs to explain that it does happen.

Again, science cannot offer a metaphysical explanation for the physical effects as this would require overstepping the bounds of science.

 

[Arandur]

Thanks, Michaelo. You put things very simply and accurately.

Why is the observation of the soul’s effect on the body a “philosophical consideration”? Is science forbidden from discussing matters that affect the human body?

Reggie, would you please answer some of my questions, particularly, at this point, those about your own experience with scientists or knowledge of the field?

I think your many misconceptions and misunderstandings result from not really having a good education in the sciences. I’m sorry, that’s what it appears to be. Please study what science IS and then get back to me. Some call the description or study of what science is the “Philosophy of Science.” Note that this term does not contradict the way I’ve been using the terms as separate things. There are many sense to words. In one sense, science is a branch of philosophy, in that it seeks knowledge. But it is a very specific branch, a subset. The greater object of philosophy is knowledge obtained by human reason.

Science limits itself to the study of natural phenomena observable by the SENSES. Our minds can comprehend and experience things far beyond the physical senses, but science as a discipline sticks with those senses, because other people can verify and corroborate things more objectively if we stick with what we can all perceive with our senses.

Where is it stated explicitly, in any science book, that evolution “cannot possibly” explain the development of human beings? In other words, that it is impossible for science to explain the origin and development of human life. Again, I don’t think there is anywhere in science literature where this distinction is drawn, but I will look and post what I find.

It doesn’t have to be stated explicitly. It is understood, by the very limitations of science.

Scientific literature draws these distinctions all over the place. Check out wikipedia. It’s a good primer on the subject with citations to follow for more. You will find a distinction between science as method and fact and philosophies of science. This is the distinction you refuse to make but that must be made in order to further our discussion and further the pursuit of truth!! Consider these things:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sciences
"Using controlled methods, scientists collect observable evidence of natural or social phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. "
These groupings are empirical sciences, which means the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[3]

Now, you tell me how we are supposed to test a “soul.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sciences#Philosophy_of_science
“Methodological naturalism maintains that scientific investigation must adhere to empirical study and independent verification as a process for properly developing and evaluating natural explanations for observable phenomena.[27]” " Critical rationalism instead holds that unbiased observation is not possible and a demarcation between natural and supernatural explanations is arbitrary; it instead proposes falsifiability as the landmark of empirical theories and falsification as the universal empirical method."
Even as a critical rationalist–which is a MAINSTREAM theory–the key is “falsifiability.” I actually don’t see much conflict but rather complementarity between critical rationalism and methodological naturalism.

Back to the soul, tell me how science can “falsify” a soul or God or morality? It can’t; these things are not subject to science, science doesn’t concern itself with them. Philosophical extensions of science DO, but not science itself.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
“The philosophy of science is concerned with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science. The field is defined by an interest in one of a set of “traditional” problems or an interest in central or foundational concerns in science.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
“A subset of philosophers of biology with a more explicitly naturalistic orientation hope that biology will provide scientific answers to such fundamental problems of epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, anthropology and even metaphysics.”
It even, later in the article, refers to “strictly philosophical” reflections of Charles Darwin.

See also: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism#Scientific_usage
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research

And don’t give me **** about wikipedia. These articles in particular are pretty good, pretty consistent with what I learned at various schools. The are fairly well-referenced. They are also likely to receive a lot of criticism and critique by scientists themselves to keep it accurate.

Therefore, I use these sources not only to give you a brief overview of what science really is to help you understand it better and where I’m coming from, but also to demonstrate that my beliefs, which you so stubbornly say are very individualistic and opposed to science, are very mainstream, as are my representations of what science is, the limitations of science and the distinction between science and philosophy.

 

[Arandur]

This is not the point - you’re mistaking it. Let me repeat (in case you want to call me disingenuous.
You have stated categorically, that the human soul has an observable influence on the human body (and I fully agree with that). You now are arguing about things that “science cannot observe”. Can you see how this changes the topic and creates a new argument?

No, we were talking about the difference between science and philosophy (or “philosophies of science”) before and we are now.

Once again, science can certainly measure effects of the human soul on the body. Those effects include the result of free-will choices which override natural selection.

Tell me, how do they override natural selection? Science can’t really measure them as something attributable specifically to a soul.

Will you first, so we can get it past us, admit that free will has no effect on the rest of the natural world? So you admit no problem to evolution to anything but man?

Why is this not factored into evolutionary theory? Immaterial aspects of humanity have an influence on the body. One does not need to study the soul to observe the effects of the soul. Thus, materialistic claims about evolution (virtually all evolutionary literature offers soley materialistic claims for human origins) are false.

We’ve been through this. Since free will had no effect before the institution of the soul, let’s just take evolution of prior physical forms up to the point of Homo sapiens. At this point God gives man a soul, makes him in His image and likeness. Evolution has not said that a new species has arisen from Homo sapiens. So there is no problem with evolution here. Unless you take issue with the idea that evolutionary forces can still impact man to some degree, which I think you accepted.

At this point, references to evolutionary texts would help. I can help by showing you quotes from mainstream, highly regarded, honored and accredited evolutionary scientists who show the opposite. In fact, the most well-respected evolutionists reject your notion. So, it’s important to see which scientists claim otherwise.

See above. Be careful that your quotes do not come from biological philosophers.

It does not need to explain “how”. It merely needs to explain that it does happen. An immaterial substance affects the human body – thus, mutations and natural selection (and any other physical laws) alone are insufficient for explaining the origin and development of human beings. This falsifies evolutionary theory.

No. Science can’t be sure the soul’s effects on the physical body are caused by a soul. It cannot directly observe and measure a soul. It could be the result of Scientology’s body thetans. Science can’t tell us what’s causing it because it can’t directly observe it. So science is necessarily silent on the subject, looking only at objectively observable causes.

Here you’re offering a scientific view (minimal change in the body) regarding the effect of the human soul on it. Have evolutionary “laws” ceased to operate in the case of human beings? If not, then the effect of the soul is still relevant.

It is, on humans. But science can’t account for it. It can only attempt to improve the theories to the best of its ability to observe. The soul is not falsifiable.

But even so, you’ve shown a good way to measure this effect (sort of), but dismiss the influence of the soul because the effect on evolution was supposedly minimal. But this really makes a big difference – what if the human soul (consciousness, free-will, etc) was present at a very early stage, causing massive changes (due to free choice, not natural selection)?

Where does faith support the idea that the soul was present in ape forms prior to man? If you go this direction, you lose all support of faith. The nearest faith can tell us is that man started at Homo sapiens, or at most at a prior Homo form.

Science is totally unprepared for this – thus the sweeping claims of human origins are false (and there are sweeping claims).

Sweeping claims about such, as you’ll read above, are philosophy, not science.

This is a good point. But I think it’s a major and serious critique of evolutionary theory.

Nope. See my sources to see the mainstream understanding of science.

If my accusation is false because you provided reasons why some part of it can be refuted, then evolutionary theory is false on the same basis.

What? How?

 

[Arandur]

With the reasons you gave, you have to exclude the study of human evolution or the profound effects of the soul to defend evolutionary theory. But you will still defend it, even considering this false aspect (which is quite significant).

Let me propose that you are right in all of that, and you could be.

How can you walk away wondering “what is the problem with evolutionary theory”?

We can see, that it contains major problems in terms of claims made about the origin and development of human beings. These problems are very serious – so there is a good reason to be concerned.

Because the claims result from philosophy. They are not necessary, requisite conclusions of the science, as I have demonstrated in illustrating how evolutionary processes can occur without conflict with faith.

You know, I thought you accepted that. I thought you accepted that evolutionary processes, as I explained them, where compatible with faith. “Evolution,” as a scientific theory, is really nothing more than the processes; it is not about “claims.” What you are still taking issue with is “claims” you think evolution makes–conclusions drawn from those processes. You think these are requisite results of the science. I show through the sources that they are neither requisite nor necessarily mainstream, but that what I have been expounding upon about the nature and limitations of science as opposed to other philosophies is in fact the mainstream view.

You’ve already shown, in your own responses, that you do not accept mainstream evolutionary theory and that you accept that it is incompatible with the Faith.

Wrong! Why are you putting words into my mouth and ignoring things I’ve said many times?

The key here is what you define as “mainstream evolutionary theory.” I have spent over 10 pages, IIRC, trying to show you over and over again in many different ways that you are mistaken both about what you think is “evolutionary theory” (you are really complaining about philosophy) and what you think is “mainstream.” Maybe the sources I provided will finally convince you otherwise on both points.

Physical processes alone cannot correctly describe the development of human beings. If one “discards evidence” of the power of the human soul on the development of human beings, then the resulting science is false and misleading.

Just as science can tell us how the human body works to a great degree, without reference to a soul that science cannot understand, so too can science describe physical development through evolution without recourse to a soul. Medical science does not completely encompass all it is to be human, nor does it say it does; it does not address the soul. So too does evolution not encompass all it is to be human, nor say it does.

Does that illustrate the point (finally)? Do you reject all of medical science and call it “false and misleading” because it doesn’t account much for the soul? If not, then why on earth do you apply a logic you agree is invalid in regard to medical science to be valid in the case of evolution?!

If you’re willing to deny the observable evidence of free-will and consciousness – aspects of the soul, in defense of materialistic evolutionary theories, then that is simply defending what is false and denying the Truth. The evidence points against the “less supernatural theory” that you’re defending. In fact, mainstream evolutionary theory has no place for God’s power at all – while making claims about the origin and development of human life (absent God). That is why evolution is a foundation for atheistic thought.

What evidence points against the existence of evolutionary processes to the extent that it overwhelms evidence for it?

Again, you are simply wrong about what you think is mainstream evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory is a colleciton of made-up stories which deny what we can easily see in nature.

Now that’s just childish. Generations of research by thousands of scientists cohesively knitting together a theory that explains the vast amount of observed evidence, continually improving the theory–this does not constitute “made-up stories.” It certainly does not “deny what we can easily see in nature.” That last part is almost incomprehensible its so ridiculous. If evolution did not describe the evidence, if it were easily seen that it was false, it would have been easily discarded by science long ago.

God wants us to fight against such falsehoods and errrors. We are to use science to glorify and praise and serve God – and to recognize his power and Intelligent design in the things he has made (just as Peter Kreeft explained).

Yes. Your approach is not furthering the pursuit of truth, though. You want to throw out the whole body of evidence for evolution and confuse data, theories, arguments and conclusions across disciplines. Such confusion is far from fighting falsehood.

 

[reggieM]

Arandur – I appreciate your views here.

I’m sorry I can’t make my points any clearer than I’ve done thus far.

I’ve observed the arguments you made thus far. and I think I know where you stand.

I’ve read your counterpoints also and I will give consideration to those ideas you raised.

But other than that, I’m sorry I can’t continue the discussion on this matter.

Thanks again for your time and many good comments.

 

[reggieM]

Will you first, so we can get it past us, admit that free will has no effect on the rest of the natural world?

No, since the so-called evolution of human beings affects all other species on earth. The free-will choices of human beings affect the environment in which other species live and have to survive.

So you admit no problem to evolution to anything but man?

No, far from it. I see major problems in evolutionary theory regarding plants and animals and single-celled creatures as well. The human issue is the biggest and easiest to identify (it should be with any Catholic), but its not the only one.

There are many books that outline the problems with evolutionary theory, if you’re interested. I didn’t make up the critique but I just accept the critique because it appeals to my sense of reason, logic and understanding of the world.

I understand that you disagree with me here – as I know many do.