Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Again, not all aspects of the human being can be explained by science.
That’s a bold claim. Please list for me all of the aspects of the human being that cannot possibly be explained by science. It would be best to support your claims from science itself – perhaps Talk Origins will tell us which areas of the human being can never be understood by science, or Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, Jerry Coyne – or even the atheistic-evolutionists here on CAF.
 
That’s a bold claim. Please list for me all of the aspects of the human being that cannot possibly be explained by science. It would be best to support your claims from science itself – perhaps Talk Origins will tell us which areas of the human being can never be understood by science, or Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, Jerry Coyne – or even the atheistic-evolutionists here on CAF.
There’s no reason why I should have to list all of the aspects that science cannot explain. I have stated at least one, the soul, demonstrating that not all can be explained by science. By definition, science investigates the physical world, so metaphysical phenomena cannot be addressed. I don’t even have to appeal to your favorite punching bags to support my argument.
 
There’s no reason why I should have to list all of the aspects that science cannot explain. I have stated at least one, the soul, demonstrating that not all can be explained by science. By definition, science investigates the physical world, so metaphysical phenomena cannot be addressed. I don’t even have to appeal to your favorite punching bags to support my argument.
Do you think mainstream evolutionists will agree with your idea that there are “some aspects of human beings that science cannot (it is not possible to) explain”?

Some of my “favorite punching bags” happen to be the most prominent, popular, well-respected and authoritative evolutionists working in science today. I would think that you’d look for some support from them. Again, perhaps they will agree that “science cannot possibly explain some aspects of human life”. After all, which evolutionists would you turn to in order to support that idea?
 
I don’t know whether I should be replying to answer # 666, but here goes. Clearly, Christians who subscribe to a wholly naturalistic world-view have a huge problem with the concept of a soul. If God can supernaturally infuse a soul into a homo sapiens, perhaps He may have intervened in other ways that science cannot capture.
I’m not going to be coy here. I believe that the whole concept of paramcia evolving into humans is rubbish. The term “missing link” is cleverly used by evolutionists so the unwashed might think that if ONLY that ONE link can be found, the entire process would come into focus. Of course, there are thousands, maybe millions of “missing links” in the story. If naturalism was so simple, perhaps the ear apparatus of an organism could be fully removed, then restored, with scientists directing chemical reactions that we can now observe. After all, it’s already happened once.
Here’s my question: Where does God fit into the scheme? What is the point of “God”, when every organism had the innate ability to evolve itself over billions of years? Or so the “science” texts claim! Rob 🤷
 
Do you think mainstream evolutionists will agree with your idea that there are “some aspects of human beings that science cannot (it is not possible to) explain”?

Some of my “favorite punching bags” happen to be the most prominent, popular, well-respected and authoritative evolutionists working in science today. I would think that you’d look for some support from them. Again, perhaps they will agree that “science cannot possibly explain some aspects of human life”. After all, which evolutionists would you turn to in order to support that idea?
Why not just consider the established definition of science and avoid possibly introducing unwanted bias and agendas to the discussion by appealing to various figures?
 
Here’s my question: Where does God fit into the scheme? What is the point of “God”, when every organism had the innate ability to evolve itself over billions of years? Or so the “science” texts claim! Rob 🤷
I believe that God is responsible for the physical laws that govern processes like evolution.
 
Why not just consider the established definition of science and avoid possibly introducing unwanted bias and agendas to the discussion by appealing to various figures?
Let’s take another path …

What is the soul? What function does it have in human beings? What is its origin? How does it affect human life?
 
Let’s take another path …

What is the soul? What function does it have in human beings? What is its origin? How does it affect human life?
I’m not in the position to thoroughly answer these questions. I thought you offered good insight, but feel free to elaborate if necessary.
What evidence? Again, are you saying God has to use Darwinian evolution?
Are you saying that God has to use intelligent design? If you’d like me to reiterate the argument for evolution, please at least indicate what specific evidence you want me to provide.
 
Are you saying that God has to use intelligent design?
God is inherently intelligent, is He not? Again, would He setup a system of chances and best case scenarios, or something that is intelligible that we can readily understand through reason?
 
God is inherently intelligent, is He not? Again, would He setup a system of chances and best case scenarios, or something that is intelligible that we can readily understand through reason?
Can you be more specific? Give me an example of how intelligent design offers an explanation for a natural phenomenon that we can support with evidence.
 
Give me an example of how intelligent design offers an explanation for a natural phenomenon that we can support with evidence.
Well, the scientific method is based on the principle of causality: that we live in an intelligible universe with a cause and effect that effect laws in the universe. Let say for example that we don’t take order and structure for granted, how then is it possible to draw a hypothesis? In a chaotic ever changing shifting world, there would be no need for intelligence, no way to anticipate discoveries, or expect a hypothesis. If an apple falls off the tree, there is no way for me to expect that to happen again or think that some force must have caused it to fall, as an example. The only reason science exists is because we do live in a highly fashioned and structured world, with laws, and a particular design. Again, God would not create anything that is not accessible to us through reason. The planet earth, for example, is the at right spot for making scientific discoveries; scientists are now beginning to think, this is much like the porridge, not too hot and not too cold.
 
M0nkey

What’s ID’s explanation for the diversity of life that we observe? Be specific. And please note that I’m not asking how life began, but rather how the diversity of life originated.
 
What’s ID’s explanation for the diversity of life that we observe? Be specific. And please note that I’m not asking how life began, but rather how the diversity of life originated.
Are you assuming there is a scientific explanation for how God created the world? We know that every creature has a specific DNA that is unlike any other. I believe what ID attempts to do as a science is explain what happens exactly as cellular mutation takes place. It is looking at the molecular level and understanding these micro changes from an intelligible point of view, not as a misguided process. We know very little, that is one reason scientists simply call it a “random mutation”.
 
M0nkey

What’s ID’s explanation for the diversity of life that we observe? Be specific. And please note that I’m not asking how life began, but rather how the diversity of life originated.
God created the Language of DNA and set it into some basic body types. From these basic forms all diversity is generated.
 
I’m not in the position to thoroughly answer these questions. I thought you offered good insight, but feel free to elaborate if necessary.
That is an admirable response and I appreciate your circumspect approach. I’ll just offer some ideas on this.

First, the nature of the soul – what is it?

In perennial Catholic teaching from the Fathers of the Church, through St. Thomas Aquinas, through Garrigou-Lagrange and Cardinal Newman and the Catholic Catechism … the soul is:

**…the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated. **The term “mind” usually denotes this principle as the subject of our conscious states, while “soul” denotes the source of our vegetative activities as well. That our vital activities proceed from a principle capable of subsisting in itself, is the thesis of the substantiality of the soul: that this principle is not itself composite, extended, corporeal, or essentially and intrinsically dependent on the body, is the doctrine of spirituality.
– Catholic Encyclopedia - Soul
newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm

What about the faculties or functions are the soul?

Those deal with “intelligence and will” and include memory and imagination – and in general “consciousness” or “self-awareness”.

The soul is the source of free-will.

It is also called, in Catholic philosophical terms: “the form of the body”. It is the supernaturally created “internal principle” of the body – united to the body.

What is the origin of the soul?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
366 The Church teaches that **every spiritual soul is created immediately by God **- it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.
De Fide dogma – God directly creates the human soul. It is not the product of evolution, physical laws or matter. It did not emerge gradually by a slow process of mutations.
1703 Endowed with “a spiritual and immortal” soul,[5] the human person is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake.”[6] From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.
Doctrinal teaching – God willed human beings. Humans did not emerge from nature by an accidental, unintelligent, unconscious process – but were “willed into existence”. God knew about and planned for the creation of humans.
1704 The human person participates in the light and power of the divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection “in seeking and loving what is true and good.”[7]
Humans are capable, by the supernatural power of the Spirit in their rational souls – through intellectual apprehension of created things to “understand the order of things established by the Creator.”

That is basically the Design Argument right there – in the text of the catechism. But that’s a different point. We were looking at the soul and its powers.

The most important point here is that the soul is not completely independent and separate from the body. They are united and work together. This is obviously true regarding the operation of conscious intellect – it directs the body.
1705 By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, an “outstanding manifestation of the divine image.”[8]
Again, free-will is “by virtue of the soul” – it is not a material substance.
You have correctly argued that already many times.

The soul, however, has a direct influence on the body. It is united to the body itself. The soul is not subject to material laws, it was not produced by physical laws of nature and is not composed of matter. It can cause human beings to choose “against nature” – thus, humans are not subject (slaves) of natural powers like so-called evolution.

Human beings are not determined by evolutionary laws. If evolutionary theory was true (in its mainstream, most common presentation), then human beings would be entirely determined by natural processes. There could be no free-will, and nothing in humans that was not the result and outcome of “fixed natural laws”.

But that is what Darwinism teaches – that is Darwin’s challenge (which I provided a long time back in these discussions) that “Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws”. That is the foundation of evolutionary theory.

To say that “the soul is not a part of material nature” is true in one aspect. As easily understood here – the soul is directly created by God as immaterial.

But it is false with regards to “everything that happens in nature”. Clearly, the soul affects the human body. The human body is composed of elements of material nature.

So, the soul affects material nature.
 
Are you assuming there is a scientific explanation for how God created the world? We know that every creature has a specific DNA that is unlike any other. I believe what ID attempts to do as a science is explain what happens exactly as cellular mutation takes place. It is looking at the molecular level and understanding these micro changes from an intelligible point of view, not as a misguided process. We know very little, that is one reason scientists simply call it a “random mutation”.
God created the Language of DNA and set it into some basic body types. From these basic forms all diversity is generated.
Evolution offers a possible pathway by which DNA could have evolved:

DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication (Jeffares et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999; Poole et al. 1998). The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids (Böhler et al. 1995). A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA – all without any protein enzymes (Levy and Ellington 2003).

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html
 
Evolution offers a possible pathway by which DNA could have evolved:
So are you saying God had to use RNA to create DNA? Again, what is your take on presuming science has to explain the work of the Creator? Don’t dodge the question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top