Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

[buffalo]

That’s definitely an interesting proposition, and I’m glad that you made the important distinction between science and philosophy class.

I always have.

 

[edwest2]

Although there are different branches of knowledge, we must recognize, as Catholics, how all this fits into our mission to evangelize the world. As we are told in the Bible, Jesus actually rose from the dead. The disciples told the people that if Christ did not rise then our faith is in vain. In other words, there is no point if it did not happen. So let’s keep in mind that this event did occur.

Let’s go to Science class. What did we learn?

A self-starting and self-regulating engine created all life on earth. It selects, blindly, who will live and who will die.

Man is part of a long line of pre-men, or hominids. We share a common ancestor with apes.

Let’s go to Religion class.

No blind selection was going on. The random events that were selected were, in fact, not random. We were willed by God. Each one of us.

Adam and Eve are clearly identified as real people and our first parents. They are also the reason God sent His son to die as a sacrifice to restore our relationship with God. Original Sin is inborn in each of us. Further, we are told that Eve was created by God from Adam’s side.

What does the average public school student understand about the engine called evolution? It starts itself, runs itself, is fed random mutations and selects organisms who just happen to be in the right place at the right time. Somehow, so-called pathways exist that go from say, primitive light sensing cells to a full blown eyeball, complete with optic nerve and fully integrated into the correct part of the brain.

Could any of this be by design? No, of course not. You are the result of a blind, uncaring process that did not have you in mind. “In fact,” if it were possible to rewind the process, things would have turned out differently because the variables would not be the same.

A further problem is this: science is about facts and evidence while religion is just belief class. Clearly inferior.

And that is the issue: Human identity and human dignity. Where do they come from? And trust me, science is certainly tackling those issues as well. Humans evolved naturally; the little engine called evolution did it all by itself. We are told that our genetic material gave rise to a brain that it also kept upgrading. At some point, our neuro-circuitry invented god or gods. Now, our circuitry no longer requires such a thing.

I hope everyone can see the obvious conflicts. And no, faith is not non-factual.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

A

What does the average public school student understand about the engine called evolution? It starts itself, runs itself, is fed random mutations and selects organisms who just happen to be in the right place at the right time. Somehow, so-called pathways exist that go from say, primitive light sensing cells to a full blown eyeball, complete with optic nerve and fully integrated into the correct part of the brain.

Could any of this be by design? No, of course not. You are the result of a blind, uncaring process that did not have you in mind. “In fact,” if it were possible to rewind the process, things would have turned out differently because the variables would not be the same.

A further problem is this: science is about facts and evidence while religion is just belief class. Clearly inferior.

And that is the issue: Human identity and human dignity. Where do they come from? And trust me, science is certainly tackling those issues as well. Humans evolved naturally; the little engine called evolution did it all by itself. We are told that our genetic material gave rise to a brain that it also kept upgrading. At some point, our neuro-circuitry invented god or gods. Now, our circuitry no longer requires such a thing.

I hope everyone can see the obvious conflicts. And no, faith is not non-factual.

Peace,
Ed

I am depressed just reading this. Small wonder India is laden with such despair.

 

[ready]

Although there are different branches of knowledge, we must recognize, as Catholics, how all this fits into our mission to evangelize the world. As we are told in the Bible, Jesus actually rose from the dead. The disciples told the people that if Christ did not rise then our faith is in vain. In other words, there is no point if it did not happen. So let’s keep in mind that this event did occur.

Let’s go to Science class. What did we learn?

A self-starting and self-regulating engine created all life on earth. It selects, blindly, who will live and who will die.

Man is part of a long line of pre-men, or hominids. We share a common ancestor with apes.

Let’s go to Religion class.

No blind selection was going on. The random events that were selected were, in fact, not random. We were willed by God. Each one of us.

Adam and Eve are clearly identified as real people and our first parents. They are also the reason God sent His son to die as a sacrifice to restore our relationship with God. Original Sin is inborn in each of us. Further, we are told that Eve was created by God from Adam’s side.

What does the average public school student understand about the engine called evolution? It starts itself, runs itself, is fed random mutations and selects organisms who just happen to be in the right place at the right time. Somehow, so-called pathways exist that go from say, primitive light sensing cells to a full blown eyeball, complete with optic nerve and fully integrated into the correct part of the brain.

Could any of this be by design? No, of course not. You are the result of a blind, uncaring process that did not have you in mind. “In fact,” if it were possible to rewind the process, things would have turned out differently because the variables would not be the same.

A further problem is this: science is about facts and evidence while religion is just belief class. Clearly inferior.

And that is the issue: Human identity and human dignity. Where do they come from? And trust me, science is certainly tackling those issues as well. Humans evolved naturally; the little engine called evolution did it all by itself. We are told that our genetic material gave rise to a brain that it also kept upgrading. At some point, our neuro-circuitry invented god or gods. Now, our circuitry no longer requires such a thing.

I hope everyone can see the obvious conflicts. And no, faith is not non-factual.

Peace,
Ed

I’m with you, Ed.

 

[Arandur]

I’m going to post some catch up responses. I chime in on responses to Michaelo. Sorry for the length.

ReggieM

Plus, the fact that the soul is immaterial and created directly by God is another major problem for evolution. Since God intervened directly in nature to create the human soul, it is false to build a model of nature as if God never intervened directly and in a profound way.

Physics, chemistry, and all other disciplines of science “build a model of nature as if God never intervened directly and in a profound way.” Are they wholly false?

ReggieM

I question (repeating Pope John Paul II’s criticism) – what about the “Ontological Leap”?
How can you talk about evolution without mentioning the nature of the human soul, its effect on the body, and it’s impact on any possible natural development?

The answer: “Science can’t discuss the soul”.

Ok, then obviously, your “proof” that human evolved from apes is inadequate. You refuse to consider the most profound aspect of human life – the soul. It is dismissed and ignored.

The evolutionist answer? “We don’t dismiss or ignore it, we just can’t talk about it”.

I think that is really how evolutionary theory “defends” itself. It’s a little game of hiding the evidence and then claiming that “we can’t talk about that”.

So, this little game is the basis upon which this so-called “real science” is conducted. Some people are able to see through this.

The Ontological Leap is wrong, and yes, science should not attempt to make it. It does not. As I showed (I believe CONCLUSIVELY) through reference to the definition of science and the philosophies of science, science does explicitly limit itself and say that it cannot make such ontological leaps, or if it does so it does so on the basis of philosophy, not anything demonstrated by empirical science. So saying “science can’t discuss the soul” is not the same as “dismissing” and “ignoring” it. It is merely ADMITTING that science can’t explain this variable. So we try to explain all other variables that science can detect. Scientists do this all the time—making mention of variables they don’t understand and can’t study. How does this make it false? It just means that science, as it admits, doesn’t explain everything, can’t describe that other variable.

Tell me, how is all of science made totally false by its limitation to things physically observable by the senses?

I want science to address the influence of the soul on the body because, supposedly, the development and origin of the body is the subject of science. How do you talk about that subject while ignoring an influence on its development? I provided a fairly simple example. I’m sorry I can’t explain this any better. I’ll accept that you don’t understand and/or don’t agree. Beyond that, there’s nothing more to say. Thanks.

What about the influence of the soul (or perhaps angels, as another metaphysical force) on medicine? On physics? On chemistry? On any other scientific discipline? Are these totally false in all respects because they don’t account for the soul or for anything metaphysical?

Yet again, on what basis do you claim that ALL that evolution describes is totally false and useless just because it can’t describe one variable? To be consistent with your argument, you must then claim that ALL of scientific knowledge is totally false and useless if it cannot describe a variable, particularly metaphysical ones in this instance.

ReggieM

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”?

As you point out, the people you keep pointing to are largely materialist atheists. They don’t believe there is anything other than the physical, so of course they think everything can be described by science. Appealing to them is useless to the discussion because of their fundamental erroneous assumption that nothing exists but the material. You must debate materialism with them first before you ever get to evolution. The same will be true of any materialist approach. Please exclude them from future discussion here, because to refer to materialists is an unprofitable red herring. Materialism is the premise that must be debated with them first, because it affects all their other arguments.

RACJ

If God can supernaturally infuse a soul into a homo sapiens, perhaps He may have intervened in other ways that science cannot capture.

Yes

 

[Arandur]

RACJ

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’ve explained on earlier pages how God fits in. Go to those for detail, but the summary is simply that God created the entire physical universe and all its laws. He designed all natural laws and processes intentionally; He thus designed evolution. He specifically intended humans and further, supernaturally intervened to provide mankind with souls in His image and likeness.

The “point” of God? Nothing would exist without Him. None of these wonderful processes of nature (including evolution) would exist without Him. He did not have to specifically and miraculously (suspending the laws of nature that He created) create a grasshopper any more than He had to specifically and miraculously cause a breeze through the trees outside your window. He knows all processes, laws, events, and outcomes of all these (and thus each individual organism and how it and its species develops). He designed them and brought them about via natural laws and processes. It’s really pretty simple, and consistent with the rest of the body of science (beyond evolution). If this is not your position, but instead you manufacture some conflict between evolution and faith (not philosophical outgrowths of evolution, but evolution as a process described by science), then I fail to see how that manufactured conflict does not invalidate all of scientific knowledge.

If you assume that the existence of one natural process is impossible because you want its outcomes to be miraculously caused by suspension of natural laws, then you must also insist that no natural laws and processes are possible because they must be miraculously caused. It is just such an approach that feeds atheism in our society, because many people see believers seemingly claiming that everything in nature is directly miraculously caused, a sort of ancient pagan mythology belief, and thus such people conclude that believers are against all science, don’t believe in anything science has discovered, and are intentionally ignorant and superstitious.

M0nkey

Do you really think that God has to use such “process”?

Do you really think that God doesn’t use any processes in the natural world? See above. Your approach invalidates all of science and puts you in the category of superstitious believers in mythology who don’t accept that we can know anything about our natural world and that everything is a miracle caused directly by God.

If God wants to design a natural process to do something (as the evidence indicates in all manner of scientifically-discovered natural processes and laws), who are you to claim otherwise? God could have snapped His fingers and made everything in a single instant just as you know it today, along with a tasty bowl of soup for you to enjoy. Does the evidence suggest that He did so?

M0nkey

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?

Yes, God is intelligent. He did set up something intelligible and understandable by reason. That’s why we can study and understand more and more about evolutionary processes all the time. Evolution is not beyond our comprehension, save in our inability (by simple human limitations that also pertain to all sorts of things beyond evolution) to know every single variable at once and how they interact to produce a particular outcome in a specific instance.

M0nkey

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.

It looks like you agree that we can take the principle of causality for granted in our scientific study of the universe. So you agree that natural laws and processes interact together to produce everything we can observe in the physical world. I assume you’d agree that the better we come to understand those laws and processes, the better we can explain and predict things in the natural world.

So what’s your problem with evolution? It is simply a description of a process produced by the interaction of all those other laws and processes.

For you to have a problem with evolution, you seem to believe that evolution somehow stands apart from those other processes, that it magically creates unpredictable outcomes. This premise is totally against everything that evolutionary science states and investigates and is thus completely irrelevant to any discussion or judgment about evolution… I thought I explained how that premise is false in our discussion of “randomness.”

 

[Arandur]

M0nkey

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”.

We may not be able to know how God created matter, energy, and natural laws and processes, but don’t you think we can scientifically explain how things happen obedient to those laws and processes?
Yes, scientists call it “random” because they don’t know all the variables in any particular instance, but can observe a pattern and how that pattern is then influenced by environmental factors.

I’ve never seen a description of ID that is concerned with understanding how molecular changes take place. I have seen, however, how evolutionary biologists and microbiologists are investigating that very thing. If ID proponents are doing that, great; so are proponents of evolution, because they believe those processes can be understood as well.

ReggieM

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.

Evolution does not claim the origin of the soul, so there is no conflict.

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.

Right. God knew about and planned for the creation of humans, and the evidence in our physical world suggests that He deliberately designed a natural process by which to bring about at the least the rest of physical organisms, and likely our own physical bodies as well (but not the soul, created immediately by Him and what distinguishes us from other organisms).

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.”

Of course. That’s why we can discover and understand natural processes like the hydrological cycle and evolution. You’ve got to get rid of this apparent underlying notion that evolution is not understandable or established by the Creator. I don’t know where that comes from (except perhaps from materialists); it’s not an inherent part of evolution.

It can cause human beings to choose “against nature” – thus, humans are not subject (slaves) of natural powers like so-called evolution.

You can’t conclude this, as I’ve pointed out before. You can only conclude that the soul adds another variable. Humans are influenced by nature; our free will does not remove us entirely from it. We can make choices that affect that natural influence, but we cannot suspend it entirely.

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”.

You again don’t make the distinction between the science and the philosophy. You blame the science for materialist philosophies. This is erroneous and misguided.

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.

There is a difference between the principle of causality (which M0nkey referred to) plus the empirical restriction of science and the conclusion you are exaggerating in your quote. The “everything” must either be understood in the context of science or it is philosophy. Darwinism as philosophy has obvious materialistic errors. Taking your “everything in nature is the result of fixed laws” as meaning there is nothing beyond the natural is a materialist argument that must first be addressed before evolution or anything else in science can be discussed in conjunction with faith. Again, the philosophy of materialism is the problem, not science. Evolution as science is no more dependent upon materialist philosophy than ecology and physics or chemistry are.

 

[Arandur]

M0nkey

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.

I get sick of this question because it seems such a cop out. It seems to be saying: “Science describes a law or process. So? 1. Does that mean God had to make it? 2. Does that mean God had to use it?”

The underlying questions can be answered thusly: 1. Yes. God created all natural processes and laws. 2. No. God can suspend His natural laws and processes in miracles. He doesn’t seem to do that often, and if He did it all the time, we would not be able to rely upon the principle of causality or empirical science.

God did not have to use RNA to create DNA. If science discovers that this can and likely did happen, do you think that means that God DIDN’T do it? If so, what does that imply about the reliability of science, or of studying creation at all?

As for science explaining the work of the Creator, I’m pretty sure that’s what the Church teaches. Science is profitable for helping us understand what He created.

EdWest.

Excellent post, ReggieM. It must be made clear that there are not two realities but one. The human body is physical and spiritual. The work of the soul can be observed by science but with a definite bias toward a fully natural, non-God, origin.

There is no value in including God if you don’t believe in Him or the soul. The full, complete answer must include the spiritual and its very real effect on the body. If the spiritual is excluded, then science creates evolutionary psychology which assigns to chance and selection all of our mental functions, including imagination. This means our genetic material alone, through undirected upgrading, is who we are. This answer cannot ground the dignity of the human person as willed by God.
Thanks, Ed. I fully agree with your analysis on this also. Evolutionary theory reduces the human being to matter and physical laws.

Yes, science can’t fully explain human being, being physical and spiritual. It does not claim to do so. Yes, evolutionary psychology, where it presumes to ascribe the effects and powers of the soul to mere matter, fails erroneously.

Thanks, Ed. I fully agree with your analysis on this also. Evolutionary theory reduces the human being to matter and physical laws.

You blurred an important distinction again. Be clear in your definitions. Ed spoke of evolutionary psychology, and by extension of philosophical outgrowths of evolution, or materialistic approaches. Evolutionary theory, as strictly science, does not err in these ways, does not “reduce the human being to matter and physical laws.” It does not limit human existence to the physical, only tries to describe physical aspects of it.

ReggieM

Ok, but if the theory merely stated that organisms can show some limited physical changes due to adaptations to environmental conditions – there would be no debate. We wouldn’t be talking about that topic on CAF since it would be irrelevant.

How “limited” do you want to make it? This seems to be the crux. Evolution describes processes of adaptation and speciation due to adaptation. I don’t see how speciation, even as far back as original ancestry, is a problem. It is only a claim to materialism, existence without God, that is a problem, and that’s not a claim made by evolution.

Evolutionary theory makes claims that go beyond the evidence. That’s the problem, and that’s why many Catholics argue against the theory.

You argue against philosophies, not science. Did you ever read the sources I posted on the definitions of science, the scientific process, the philosophy of science?

If we want to further the investigation of truth, we must make these important distinctions, and point out to unbelievers that they must make the distinctions as well, because we are talking about different disciplines of thought.

If we want to end this mistaken belief that the Church is opposed to science, that faith is opposed to science, then we MUST make this distinction. It is not science we quarrel with, for science discovers truth about creation that cannot contradict truth about God, for it is of God. It is philosophies that we quarrel with, for philosophies often err about God.

It is becoming more and more clear to me that really, what you’re arguing against is materialism. Let’s end this animosity against evolution (as a natural process) and engage the rest of the world in a debate about materialism, without muddying the waters. For as long as you mistakenly accuse the science of evolution for materialistic philosophies, you will perpetuate the idea that science and faith are at odds and that religion denies science in favor of superstition and mythology.

EdWest

Is evolution a self-starting process?

No, God created it, as with all of nature. Science does not claim anything about where evolution came from.

Is it fueled by random mutations?

“Random” only because of our limited understanding, like any other observed random distribution. Big misnomer, though, as environmental factors drive outcomes. God knows all events in nature and knows perfectly the interaction of natural forces through all of time.

Does it operate independent of any supernatural influence?

No, since God created it. Science can’t say what supernatural influences affect it and just tries to describe what it can observe to the best of its ability. It makes no claims otherwise.

 

[Arandur]

Are the final results fully explained by mechanical and chemical processes?

Not necessarily, but it is likely that they explain most things about the natural world. There are extra things about humans (making us different from other organisms) that are less fully explained and can’t be by science. Science makes no claims on these, just tries to discover everything it can of the physical.

Does it explain the increase in genetic information from primitive cells to complex animals?

It hypothesizes rationally about possible ways, yes, and seeks evidence suggesting one way or the other about that hypothesis.

If so, does this increase in DNA information have a completely natural foundation?

It could, but remember that nature is of God, not apart from Him.

Were the first human beings simply slightly more evolved hominids?

If by “human BEING” you mean our current experience of being human, no, because of the soul, which science doesn’t attempt to describe or make claims about.

Did their brain function simply upgrade to a level that allowed them to create tools?

Well, chimps and other animals can create tools, so I don’t think you want to use that as your criteria. But abstract thought, reason, self awareness, and so forth as we know it has not been explained by science and can’t be. Science can’t measure abstract thought, reason, or self awareness. These things are immaterial, not physical, not observable by the senses. Science can never fully describe or understand them.

My claim is this: by excluding a direct causal role for God, evolutionary theory is incompatible with Church teaching (see Communion and Stewardship).

Evolutionary theory does not exclude a causal role for God. What do you mean by “direct?” “Immediate,” as in the sense that God immediately creates souls? On what basis would you believe that God directly/immediately creates physical organisms or species?

EdWest

A scientific theory cannot include God in its explanation, but we may discern His influence through theological musings.

This needs to be explicity included. If not, it violates Church teaching.

Did you read any of my sources on science or the philosophy of science? The limitations of science are “explicitly included.” Do you expect science to “explicitly include” every theological possibility and say that it can’t rule on these? No, it makes a statement about its limitations and doesn’t tread on theological turf.

God is truth and if science is true then God must be in it. Using the broad definition of science (pursuit of knowledge) has to include God or it cannot be true. Empirical science is the only place where we can see and test the truth without invoking God in the formula. Any science outside of empirical science therefore invokes God.

If you want to make the distinction of “empirical science,” I’ll roll with it. I believe Michaelo and others have been using “science” to mean “empirical science” in just about every instance we have used it, not in the broader sense of just “pursuit of knowledge.”

Edwest:

There are problems for the theory of evolution in regards to clear Catholic Church teaching:

A) No polygenism. God did not select two hominds out of a group, and drop souls into them.

Evolution doesn’t define all of human BEING (as we know it, with a soul), so it doesn’t explain how exactly it came to be. God could have taken hominids and imbued them with souls, making additional changes to their physical forms if He wished. If He did not want to make additional changes, He didn’t have to. Still, science can’t detect the moment that we came into full human being, so even our bodies could have been immediately and miraculously formed. Since the evidence suggests that we have many similarities with other organisms, I think it is only rational to believe that God used some manner similar to the processes by which He’s affected all other organisms to bring our physical forms about.

B) Eve was formed by God from Adam’s side. See the encyclical Arcanum by Pope Leo XIII.

Please point me to the reference that claims this directly. I don’t see how this detail is necessarily exactly physically true in the literal sense, if six day creation or waters of the firmament or many other physical, “scientific” details of the Bible are not symbolic but rather must be literally and scientifically true.

As Catholics, we are called to evangelize the whole world. What are we going to tell people about why Christ lived, died and rose again? Because of two hominids God gave souls to? We are taught that Adam and Eve were real people. We are told that through one man sin entered the world.

There is no sin without a soul. Science makes no claims about souls or sin. It only looks into physical causes observed by the senses. Morality and all other non-physical things are for philosophy and theology. Why do you need science to prove Jesus and His purpose? Do you think science is more important than faith, or that it is worthless and totally untrue in every respect unless it can affirm everything that faith tells us?

 

[reggieM]

ReggieM

Physics, chemistry, and all other disciplines of science “build a model of nature as if God never intervened directly and in a profound way.” Are they wholly false?

If they attempt to explain the origin and development of human life in a model that excludes the observable influence of immaterial, intelligent causes – then yes, they would be wholly false on that point.

The Ontological Leap is wrong, and yes, science should not attempt to make it. It does not.

No, the Ontological Leap is correct and science attempts to explain human life while ignoring that fact.

As I showed (I believe CONCLUSIVELY) through reference to the definition of science and the philosophies of science, science does explicitly limit itself and say that it cannot make such ontological leaps, or if it does so it does so on the basis of philosophy, not anything demonstrated by empirical science.

That’s a philosophical statement in itself – so, if true, then science uses philosophy to prove that it does not use philosophy. The notion of “empirical science” is a philosophical one, and the results of empiricism must be and are always (100% of the time) interpreted and expressed through a philosophical lens.

Tell me, how is all of science made totally false by its limitation to things physically observable by the senses?

Perhaps you think all of science is false – I don’t know. If you’re wondering why evolutionary theory is false, then the fact that it attempts to explain the origin and development of human life while ignoring the empirical evidence of immaterial causes should be a good enough answer.

 

[reggieM]

Yes, science can’t fully explain human being, being physical and spiritual. It does not claim to do so. Yes, evolutionary psychology, where it presumes to ascribe the effects and powers of the soul to mere matter, fails erroneously.

Where in the scientific literature does it state that science is incapable of fully explaining human beings? What, precisely, are the limits acknowledged by science in this matter?

You speak, correctly, about the “effects and powers of the soul”. We can observe those effects empirically. Why is this not the proper subject of science – since some of the effects of the soul influence the development of human life (and thus, so-called evolution)?

… I am assuming that you accept the perennial Catholic teaching on the nature and faculties of the soul (e.g. consciousness, free-will, imagination, memory).

 

[reggieM]

Evolution as science is no more dependent upon materialist philosophy than ecology and physics or chemistry are.

If that is true, then science can claim to fully explain the entire origin and development of human beings – as most mainstream evolutionists do today. Evolution, the study of life, is considered to be not significantly different than chemistry or physics. Therefore, the subject area of “human life” is essentially the same as that of chemistry – according to this view (as you state here).

By default, that is a materialist view of human life – just as chemistry takes a materialistic view of chemicals. Nothing is lacking in chemistry’s analysis of chemicals. Thus, nothing is lacking in evolution’s attempt to explain human life.

This ignores the soul and reduces human life to the materialistic level.

If you make a distinction here about the soul – and that is united to, and has profound influence on the subject matter of evolution – then you should stop comparing evoution with chemistry.

 

[reggieM]

Right. God knew about and planned for the creation of humans, and **the evidence in our physical world suggests that He deliberately designed a natural process **by which to bring about at the least the rest of physical organisms, and likely our own physical bodies as well (but not the soul, created immediately by Him and what distinguishes us from other organisms).

What evidence are you referring to here (in the bold text)? Again, you have evidence that shows that God deliberately designed a natural process and that God planned human life.

 

[Michaelo]

reggieM

I believe I’ve already answered all of these questions:

Where in the scientific literature does it state that science is incapable of fully explaining human beings? What, precisely, are the limits acknowledged by science in this matter?

Science’s own definition expresses its inability to explain the metaphysical aspect of the human being.

You speak, correctly, about the “effects and powers of the soul”. We can observe those effects empirically. Why is this not the proper subject of science – since some of the effects of the soul influence the development of human life (and thus, so-called evolution)?

Can you demonstrate how you can attribute these physical effects to the soul via the scientific method?

 

[edwest2]

The discussion has returned to the either/or question. If you don’t believe ‘this’ about science then you must want to throw it all out.

Too many people are missing the obvious. Just look out the window: Man created God on the sides of buses. Do the people who put that there have anything to back it up? Yes. Science.

And then there is the general secular power struggle. Reason, also known as Science, also known as Evolution, must replace religion in life and politics.

But, what about the science? What about it? As explained, neo-Darwinism explicitly excludes God from the equation. The engine of evolution runs by itself. And the followers of Stephen Jay Gould have bought the assumption that if the process could be rewound then a different result would occur. We could have an entire planet of non-sentient animals. No architecture, no complex tools and no culture.

That’s all that’s going on here. An increasing level of investigation into human behavior is only revealing mechanical function, according to those who study evolutionary psychology. We are born, grow up, learn stuff, are programmed to reproduce, perform adaptive (or not) behaviors and die. That’s it.

If people don’t want to bother reading the encyclical by Pope Leo XIII that states Eve was formed from Adam’s side, I ask, why not? If you are Catholic, do you believe God can perform miracles? Do not idolize science. It is only a tool.

In our mission to evangelize the world, we are not passing along an idea, or a scientifically unprovable list of events but a reality. God knows our lack of belief. God knows about the ultra-orthodox religion of science that exists for some. If Christ did not rise from the dead, then our faith is in vain. How much clearer can I say it? It Actually Happened. Got that?

But, you might ask, isn’t the science behind evolution true? You might say, Hey, you can’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Here, on this forum, we can talk about the whole thing. Science is not knowledge that exists in a vacuum. Example: a man invents a pick ax in 38 B.C. but he doesn’t tell anybody what it’s for. Two guys see it. One asks the other, What is that? The other one says, I don’t know. And they walk away.

Today, followers of science go on Christian forums and say, Look. We’ve got science! And we say, What do you use it for? And then we’re given excerpts from the Biology textbook that tells us about the engine of evolution and how it made us. We are then warned, Don’t you dare get God or the supernatural within miles of the science classroom or the public schools for that matter.

This is not about science. I am convinced that according to the Biology textbook, the process of evolution runs by itself. Runs by itself. I am positive the people who put Man Created God on the sides of buses don’t care about God and don’t care that here, God has been added to the evolution equation. In the outside world, right now, the Invisible Man in the sky does not matter. You can’t show them evidence that God intervened in any way, shape or form in anything. Therefore, Man created God.

The Church doesn’t believe that by the way.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

In our mission to evangelize the world, we are not passing along an idea, or a scientifically unprovable list of events but a reality. God knows our lack of belief. God knows about the ultra-orthodox religion of science that exists for some. If Christ did not rise from the dead, then our faith is in vain. How much clearer can I say it? It Actually Happened. Got that?

That is an excellent paragraph – and the rest of the post was great also. That is, indeed, our mission - to evangelize the world by bringing the reality of God to souls. And God does know what this battle is all about.

 

[reggieM]

Can you demonstrate how you can attribute these physical effects to the soul via the scientific method?

Yes, I can observe, empirically a physical effect. A human being responded to memory, imagination and even a dream. This caused free-choice decisions which changed his life. This affected the overall human population – making it possible for some to survive longer and others to die more quickly.

These effects are easily attributed to the soul, since the soul is the seat of the memory, free-will, consciousnes and imagination. We can see these effects influencing human development – empirically.

So, we have immaterial causes, empirically observed, affecting human development (so-called evolution) which are ignored or neglected by materialistic science.

 

[Michaelo]

These effects are easily attributed to the soul, since the soul is the seat of the memory, free-will, consciousnes and imagination. We can see these effects influencing human development – empirically.

But you haven’t demonstrated through scientific means why the soul is the “seat of the memory, free-will, consciousness and imagination” and therefore is responsible for the physical effects we observe.

 

[reggieM]

But you haven’t demonstrated through scientific means why the soul is the “seat of the memory, free-will, consciousness and imagination” and therefore is responsible for the physical effects we observe.

You already accepted that the soul was those things – now you’re willing to deny it? That’s the problem with materialistic evolution – it denies what we know through the Catholic Faith, and thus we have the conflict with faith you claim does not occur.

What does science say about the origin of memory, free-will, consciousness and imagination?

 

[Michaelo]

You already accepted that the soul was those things – now you’re willing to deny it? That’s the problem with materialistic evolution – it denies what we know through the Catholic Faith, and thus we have the conflict with faith you claim does not occur.

From a theological perspective, I have accepted the soul’s responsibility for these effects. However, you have claimed that the soul is a proper subject of empirical science (natural explanations for natural phenomena). You have observed natural phenomena (the physical effects of the soul), but you haven’t offered natural explanations for them. From a scientific perspective (in accordance with a proper subject of science), how do you demonstrate this causality?